Be A World Top 1000 Player Without Much Strategy!
Sort:
I play CC without lost postcards nor lost emails. It's called Online Chess here. Other sites where I play call it correspondence.
waffllemaster wrote
-Computer just are better at Tactics because they see 100% accurately to their depth , they just highlight human error. I for one like the faster time controls that have become popular because it creates more human error which is the real point to any competition. Shot clocks, play clocks all are in the same goal. Embrace errors and try to eliminate them which will be a life time goal.
If you want chess perfection play correspondence chess.
That's simply not true. Compare game tree complexity to search depth and positions per second.
This is inaccurate. Overcoming error is one of the main points of competition, not facilitating it. In basketball there are shot clocks because otherwise the team 10 points ahead could just keep the ball until the game was over. I can't think of a clock in any sport that minimizes time for the purpose of creating more error, how silly.
I would love to take up CC... if it were pre 1970 that is
Actually competition is not to overcome err but to win. To expect any human endevor to be error free is just imaginary. Yes to minimize mistakes is the goal but it doesnt happen infact we increase the rates for things to increase the chance of errors. Play clocks prevent stalling but also increase the tempo of the game resulting in a faster game and more errors.
you can still play correspondence chess and computer use is rampant but they get crushed by CC masters constantly.
Computer accuracy of assessment is based on their own positional evaluation particularities. What I meant was that computers see 3(or x) moves deep across the board humans do not consider moves this way nor can we.
It's easy to argue if you change all your statements... I guess pretending these are what you said in the first place? :p
Ziryab wrote:
I play CC without lost postcards nor lost emails. It's called Online Chess here. Other sites where I play call it correspondence.
I suppose you also think that Live Chess here is better than OTB? I just don't understand it. I prefer to play 'real' correspondence/standard chess. The games are more serious, more competitive, there will probably be a lower frequency of abuse, and there's prize $, which is fun even though I've got about 0 chance of winning it.
Tactics, strategy, positional....I think many here are perhaps too focused on the words. Anyone here may instantly change their (name any of the three terms) based on their opponents moves!
browni3141 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I play CC without lost postcards nor lost emails. It's called Online Chess here. Other sites where I play call it correspondence.
I suppose you also think that Live Chess here is better than OTB? I just don't understand it. I prefer to play 'real' correspondence/standard chess. The games are more serious, more competitive, there will probably be a lower frequency of abuse, and there's prize $, which is fun even though I've got about 0 chance of winning it.
You suppose wrong.
In quantity, my online blitz dwarfs everything else. In quality, a handful of my correspondence games rise to the top. One, in particular, was in my thoughts yesterday for a number of reasons, and I annotated it nearly a year ago at "Playing by the Book". But, the handful of games I play each year in a genuine OTB tournament are the games I talk about all year long. They are the most competitive. They are my fondest chess memories.
Here's the latest, played yesterday. It was a strategic and tactical battle. Both players had chances created by errors by the other.
