Humans against computers: is it an advantage to humans to have more time or less It's clear to me that humans are at a loss when it comes down to playing against computers. (not only due to the answers to my last question (Humans against computers). 

But, would humans (maybe a team of us) have a better chance of winning if we have a longer time per move or a shorter time?
Longer time lets both sides to calculate the variants deeper.

In blitz games (&lt; 5 min) computers are terribly strong and we have no chance. Computer's reaction is too fast and it can compute lots of variants in early few seconds. On the other hand humans are potential to make blunders.

In games with 15-60 minutes engines are strong too, but humans have chances to avoid overlooks, obvious mistakes and they can analyze the position better, but yet it's hard to resist against engines.

In long games, engines can discover more variants, the problem is by processing deep variants the state space tree gets huge and finishing depth N and getting into depth N+1 consumes too long time. In other words, if an engine makes its decision after 4 hours thinking on a position, it's rare for it to change its decision to another move by more 1 hour thinking.



On the other hand humans have more time to analyze positions strategically (the only thing that humans are still better than engines. At least it's comparable to engines)

So my answer is long games can give us a better chance to play better against computers.