@13526
"The ICCF competitors are all almost certainly using the top engines available"
++ Different engines, different tuning, different hardware (the Russians have worse hardware because of sanctions, but nevertheless 4 of the 17 finalists are Russian), different time per move (50 days per 10 moves, but one may take 2 days on a move and the other 10 days).
"I don't believe human playing strength matters at this point, due to how high engines have climbed." ++ 4 Russians qualified for the World Championship finals, despite worse hardware.
"A 2300-rated human won't have anything to offer, in terms of chess understanding, to improve the playing strength of a 3600-rated engine."
++ 'the key is planning, which computers do not do well — Petrosian-like evaluations of where pieces belong, what exchanges are needed, and what move orders are most precise within the long-term plan.' SIM Jon Edwards wins 32nd World Correspondence Championship
'How many ideas can you interactively throw at the computer in one hour is the key question'
'It takes chess wisdom to escape with a draw even though Stockfish and co have calculated 2+ scores most of the middle game.'
Interview with ICCF 26th World Champion
"chess is a draw" ++ Yes
"Otherwise, the game would be flawed." ++ Losing Chess and Connect Four are first player wins.
]
"Nobody has an advantage in playing strength"
++ Over the board 2 of the 17 finalists are IM, 1 is FM, and others untitled.
I mean playing strength, in terms of engine analysis. The ICCF competitors are all almost certainly using the top engines available - which means all the players are performing at the same level.
theres a thing where russians reportedly have reduced hardware but played well, although during the timeframe where it was confirmed that russians had reduced hardware (ie the timespan of the interview tygxc cited) russians played considerably worse.