it is blumzovitch who should make the challenge. Anyone can obtain the very powerful stockfish free. I know because I did about 2 weeks ago and first time I have a super good engine as good as houdini. So not having a good chess engine is not an excuse.
The idea is that today's correspondence is just letting chess engines run.
This has been said over and over--let's test the hypothesis?
So sisu you can challenge also using the very best chess engine [said to be better the Houdidi]
Let's make it happen!
a3 is a good move, tipically played in these kinds of Sicilian positions, obviously to prevent an annoying b4 advance by black.
sisu you seem to be backing down. But I will guess my friend [who I disagree on his mean spirited presentation] blumzovitch will not back down.
[I think he has a very good chess engine!]
When someone makes bold and critical statements of using chess engines in correspondence [when it is allowed] they should try it themselves and that is why I think sisu should take the challenge and not make a lame excuse that his chess engine is 10 years old when he has available stockfish]
Let's make it happen!
sisu You have a brain and you know very well if chess engines are allowed in correspondence It is not cheating at all.
You also know that even if your chess desktop computer is 10 years old you can use the new version of stockfish which is free and may even be better than houdini to play your match.
Both saying you have an old engine when a top notch is available and making the very untruthful statement that it is cheating to use an engine in correspondence when you kow very well it is allowed. Both of these are lame excuses and I think you know this.
Let's make it happen!
Haha, you cannot change my mind on this one, I believe that it is cheating to use an engine in correspondence chess! I don't care what the rules say!
Allow me to state my opinion that you are one of the biggest idiots I think I have ever come across. You clearly have never tried computer-aided correspondence chess, and know nothing about it. Yet you still swagger around and give your stupid opinions about how easy and stupid it is. Arrogant.
@blumzovich - you still don't seem to understand that everybody on ICCF uses computers these days, and have done for years. Morrow used an engine for his games, his opponents used engines for their games.
lol thread. ensuing correspondence discussion is whatever, but on the op
8. a3?! (Not ! as given by Mr. Morrow)
10.. h6! (Black is fine (Mr. Morrow's opponent played 10...Nb6?!))
would you at least care to elaborate? at least he gave in some lines to back up his opinion on a3, and to claim that Nb6 is "dubious" and that h6 is much better (op is obviously implying this) with no analysis at all is just silly.
er, i mean, this is an obvious troll thread, so whatever :o
a3 is a good move, tipically played in these kinds of Sicilian positions, obviously to prevent an annoying b4 advance by black.
It can be good, but sometimes it can be the subject of a knight sac or b5 can crack the queenside structure in the middlegame, though that's very specific and white shouldn't allow getting into that position to begin with.
So tired of all these people saying it is cheating to use a chess engine in correspondence chess where it is allowed.
There are many correspondence players--not just the guy at the top right now. They love the game and are NOT cheating.
I played before chess engines but having looked at the new correspondence chess in the past few months, I can say there is a lot of skill involved and I can also say the top players do have a lot of chess knowledge that very few players have.
There is much more to the game than letting your chess engine run overnight.
I can't for the life of me see how correspondence chess ratings can be any reflection of a player's skill if computers are allowed. Maybe I'm missing something. I can see it might be an interesting academic exercise. But surely the guy with the best computer given enough time must win every time?
I can't for the life of me see how correspondence chess ratings can be any reflection of a player's skill if computers are allowed. Maybe I'm missing something. I can see it might be an interesting academic exercise. But surely the guy with the best computer given enough time must win every time?
In many positions human are still better than computers. Former World Correspondence chess champion from Slovenia Marjan Šemrl said, that he analyses each suggested move of the computer for 12 hours 'manualy', before sending it, because computer is not always right. He said, that in his final game of world championship, he was hoping for opponnent to play a move, which was strongly sugested by all major computers - but it was actually an innacuraccy and he managed to win that endgame.
But if he had a better computer? Even if not now, within a few months this will be a dead end I think because a computer will always win. Sad for those who are interested though. I still find it hard to believe that the best computer would not win now anyway.
formyoffdays It does not work that way. There is more to it.
So what is the extra bit I'm missing? That humans analysing for 12 hours do better in certain positions than computers? I guess that may be true at the moment, but sadly it's just a matter of time isn't it? Surely in most positions even now a computer is going to come up with the right moves, or they wouldn't have such high ratings.
formyoffdays
there are enough positions where computer says one thing and then changes its mind. There is also the knowledge of which openings to play which will give the best chances using a chess engine. There is also the knowledge of which variations of an opening to play.
The Ponziani Tournament that is going on now is an example of this. [chess engines allowed and encouraged]
One very strong centaur player found some ideas which turned around a few very key games and kudos to that player. I will not mention his name now as the tournament is still going and the result for first, second, third will be close.
However, having said that, I can see in the future that those happenings will happen less and less often. As the chess engines somehow become even stronger than they are now--correspondence chess will die out.
This might happen in about 10-15 years and I am assuming chess engines will get even stronger.
Maybe they will do as in checkers. In checkers since it is an easy draw they say [in championship play] you must start with this move ...
Maybe 15 years from now they will say You must play the Ruy Lopez even though we have already determined that the Petroff is a draw and you would normally not reach the Ruy Lopez.
You could have the Ruy Lopez ICCF USA Correspondence Chess Champion!!
Thanks Ponz111; I wasn't aware of all that. Nice to know that humans can still beat computers occasionally. Sadly it won't last forever, and of course the computer failures against human opposition will be pored over by programmers to improve their chess programs. A microcosm of the scientific method 'innit' as they say.
To be fair in your challenge both should use a chess engine. Then if all there is to today's correpondence chess [which allows the use of engines] is letting an engine run overnight, you should be able to draw a 2 game match.
Chess engines are allowed on chess.com in unrated tournaments. Right now there is a unrated Ponziani Tournament going on.[using chess engines] Each player has one White and one Black but have to play the Ponziani. There are very few draws in this tournament.