Correspondence Chess League of America not allowed chess engines.
Has "correspondence chess" lost its meaning?
Sort:
I belive many cc players quit with the advent of engines. In order to quide the engine in a good way, instead of only interfearing it, you need to be very very strong and have a great positional sense. Centaur chess simply isn't any idea for lower rated players, because we don't understand enough what's going on anyway...
Correspondence Chess is alive and well via Centaur Chess.
It's not as simple as just letting the machine think for you. Yes, you don't see tactical mishaps since engines prevent that, but only strong players with excellent positional understanding do well in Correspondence.
It's not as simple as just letting the machine think for you. Yes, you don't see tactical mishaps since engines prevent that, but only strong players with excellent positional understanding do well in Correspondence.
Exactly, but it has a lot to do with not trusting the machine in the first place, from the tactical perspective as well.
Correspondance chess is just a lot of computers playing each other.
Which is to say that Dodger111 has no clue.
It's much more complex than that. It's humans verifying their intuitions through understanding how to properly use an engine.
If it were just computer vs computer then you could have 1000 OTB become a GM. But that doesn't and won't happen.
It's much more complex than that. It's humans verifying their intuitions through understanding how to properly use an engine.
If it were just computer vs computer then you could have 1000 OTB become a GM. But that doesn't and won't happen.
As that very interview with the new champion says, moder correspondence chess is more about advancing opening theory, and searching for the perfect game than playing.
ChrisWainscott wrote:
Correspondence Chess is alive and well via Centaur Chess.
It's not as simple as just letting the machine think for you. Yes, you don't see tactical mishaps since engines prevent that, but only strong players with excellent positional understanding do well in Correspondence.
It's not as simple as just letting the machine think for you. Yes, you don't see tactical mishaps since engines prevent that, but only strong players with excellent positional understanding do well in Correspondence.
Which is why ICCF is litered with 1700 OTB players who make IM/SIM. Because of their excellent Class B positional understanding, eh?
I didn't mean to say if you are the current CC world chess champion then you're just a patzer with no skills. (Some people seem to take great offense at that notion). What I'm objecting to is the apparent usurping of the term "correspondence chess" of yesteryear to mean something completely different. I mean look at the skill set required: many people have said the CC champion of today is the one who understands the strength of his engine very well and is able to steer it to the right outcome. Fair enough, and I'm willing to concede it's a great skill just like any others. But that's not exactly the same skills that someone like Ragozin had, is it? (I supposed he never had to think: "I should trade the bishop, because then I'll get a closed position with two knights, which, although is slightly inferior objectively, is the strength of my engine, as opposed to an open position with opposite color bishops where my eingine sucks...")
Take an example like horse-racing: apparently the skill of the rider is very important. He's the one who knows how to steer the horse and speed up and slowdown at the right moment, someone who understands the strengths of his horse very well to get the best out of it. One can easily argue without a great rider, no horse will ever become champion. But we don't really call the event "rider-racing championship" do we? It's a great skill, but it's not the same skill as a short-distance or marathon runner.
Perhaps I'm just an old-timer with too much nostalgia for history. I just happen to have a clear perception of what "correspondence chess" is (was) supposed to mean, and I find the current mixup extremely misleading if not wrong. If they can just say "old correspondence chess" is dead, old championship is abolished, now we'll have computer-assisted, or hybrid, or man-machine CC championship. All hail the new era", then I'll have no problem with that.
17 hours ago · Quote · #1
"I recently read some article about a newly crowned World correspondence chess champion. I know how it used to be played before (with postcards), and now it's play with server, which is fine. But as I read, I realize the championship allows engine participation."
PD,
Can you provide the source of your information? I'm new to computer chess and don't understand the value of any game played with a computer assisting the moves of one or both of the players. I guess there are people whose egos are so fragile that they can't stand losing. But what's the point? It's like cheating at solitare.
I play CC on several sites and I don't think any of my opponents so far have been using computers for their moves. Since I've been winning almost all of my games (and I'm not very good) I think it is a virtual certainty that they are not.
According to the USCF they do not allow computers in their CC tournaments. Books are allowed as are analysis boards of your moves so long as no one else is consulted. I play all my games according to this outline and assume anyone with even a small amount of character would do the same. I'm sure I'm missing something regarding the use of engines. It would just seem to make the whole thing pointless.
nimzo: I'm not sure if I can just put the URL here since it's a chess.com competitor's website (am not saying there is such a rule, I just don't know. Many websites do have that rule though). But if you go to google and search for an article named "Better than an engine" about someone named "Ljubicic, Leonardo", it should show up right away. The article is only 5 days old by now.
Another thing I just noticed: in the article, the champion talks a lot about his preparation and the time he devotes to it, which I don't doubt did happen. But as I was looking at the crosstable (https://www.iccf.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=37632 for the most recent ones), I don't see a lot of evidence of human influence. Essentially all the games between the top 10 man-machines are draw, which is what you'd expect if the machines are just playing each other. The final outcome seems to be decided only by the results against the last 3-4 boards, which for all I know could just mean some people didn't tune their engine properly or have inferior hardware.
I want to be clear here: I'm not saying there was not a lot of human influence - I don't know that. What I'm saying is that there is just not a lot of evidence to support that statement, so all we have are "testimony" by those who have participated. Testimonies are fine but more objective evidence will certainly be more convincing. (The issue may also be one of perception: maybe you genuinely think you're doing well and you're steering the beast and contribute a lot to the outcome, while in fact perhaps what you're doing doesn't really matter and you'll get more or less the same result anyway?)
One final thing I'm curious about: the world champ (and some people) say that the hybrid combination can play better than the best engine playing by itself. (Otherwise one can just parrot the engine with no interference and be CC champion). Considering the best engine is already at the 3300 level, does that mean a hybrid combination will play at 3400-3500 level? Then how come the top CC GMs are only rated around 2600 level? Does it mean ratings on ICCF are underreported, and a rating of 2600 on ICCF will be as strong as, say, 3400 in OTB chess?
AdamovYuri wrote:
not only correspondence but also chess is losing its meaning
you're not correct. You should use word SP518 instead of chess.
Chess should be the best move over the board at the given time, a test of skills in evaluating subtle differences in positions. Not raw brute, ply hammering by multi-threaded algorithms.
AdamovYuri wrote:
now you can never guarantee that the players are not using engines even in over the board play
That's true. All cell phones should be banned from OTB tournaments not only for players spectators as well.
Can you mention some of them?
all chess is empty and meaningless
AdamovYuri wrote:
well let me think of a few very simple ways. you can hide a tablet in the bathroom and periodically check the moves there. you can use earphone spies and so and so on.
you can go Boris Ivanov and hide the tech in a huge pair of training shoes (sneakers to our American cousins)
robbie_1969 wrote:
all chess is empty and meaningless
Reminds me Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti's "The game of chess is a waste of time..."
miriskra wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
all chess is empty and meaningless
Reminds me Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti's "The game of chess is a waste of time..."
Logically fallacious, you are utilising a false analogy which is so far removed from the original premise as to be considered absurd. Stating that chess is empty and meaningless is not synonymous with saying that its a waste of time. Although it probably is. I really wonder about all the propoganda that educators spout about the benefits of chess.
I recently read some article about a newly crowned World correspondence chess champion. I know how it used to be played before (with postcards), and now it's play with server, which is fine. But as I read, I realize the championship allows engine participation. So basically it's a hybrid man-machine championship (precisely the kind we'll consider "cheating" in turn-based chess here).
If that's the new way, that's fine by me. But that's not correspondence chess in the traditional sense of the word anymore, right? In a way I feel like the current so called "champion" is not on par with CC champions of the past. I think he should just be called "slow computer-assisted chess champion", or "hybrid chess champion" instead of CC chess champion.
A related question is: there's no CC championship in the old style anymore, right? Is this the new way to go from now on, with man collaborating with machines for best possible result?