How good are CC players

I started this thread because a lot of the players around here think that unassisted CC and OTB chess are two totally different games, thus it is possible for some player to have the chess understanding of a beginner (say <2000), while being able to produce unassisted games of a higher quality than Anand or Topalov. As evidence by the book of Berliner, the gap in knowledge between (one of) the best CC players and an ordinary GM (2500-2600) is huge.

A very interesting thread.

Here is where the rubber hits the road IMO. This is where chess engines interfere. It can take a average to worse player and make them into a titan. I know because there are several 2600 -2800 rated players on this site that I have thrashed in the past who are in this group! How did they suddenly aquire superior playing skills, well they sit on it, their wallet! Again I say; you don't play chess you know it!

Top OTB players are the best in the world at any chess discipline. They have exactly the right combination of whatever ingredients it takes to be a top chess player so, if they turn their attentions to another version of the game, they will be able to directly transfer their skills.

The issue of 'quality games' and this notion of all GM games being at some higher mystical level of chess is a bit of a nonsense though. I play through a lot of top GM games and a lot of them are completely boring! Yes, some GM games are awesome works of art which require their higher level of understanding and chess wisdom, but there are more games that aren't. Many GM games seem to be worked out from the opening, with some prepared novelty that makes their opponent use too much time and then make some blunders in time trouble. One of my recent games followed a game by Korchnoi for 28 moves!! However, the other GM was clearly in time trouble because his game fell to pieces after move 28. I had no such time trouble and didn't need some deep, mystical chess understanding to turn the material advantage into a win. Check it out: http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=1086447

This is no isolated game. Time controls play a significant role in many top GM games. I don't mean that CC players would stand a chance against top OTB players (because they wouldn't), nor do they operate on the same level, but I just want to point out that not all GM moves display their full prowess.

NM Reb wrote: I agree that the otb champ would have an overwhelming advantage in otb.[I agree completely]The faster time control and the CC champ not able to use his various "resources" for the game would spell doom for him and the greater chess  understanding of the otb champ [? Hunh... why did you just bequeath the otb champ greater understanding?..] would soon tell. However, the reverse is NOT true as the otb champ would be allowed to use days and a computer to aid him as well so the CC champ would enjoy no advantage at all. [And that's why world OTB champions have always been world CC champions too... oh wait... no, they haven't... Well that's why World CC champions have always been top 100 GMs? Uh no, they haven't! Hmmm ... oh and Reb, why are you phrasing this with hypothetical "would be's" -- there have been many CC champions over the years and they are almost NEVER the highest rated OTB players in the competitive pool.)

The simple truth of the matter is that an otb champion has deeper understanding of the game than a CC player. 

Reb, your blunt assertion of "the simple truth" is not supported by your argument and is flatly contradicted by the facts: OTB 'champs' LOSE at top level CC. The simple truth of the matter is that strong (OTB GMs) have been beaten by much much lower (OTB) rated correspondence players, who are correspondece GMs. That's not opinion it's fact. The CC GMs win, because they're better at the game being played, which is correspondence chess.

What reb and costelus and so many others do not appear to understand is that OTB chess requires a mind-athlete.  An OTB chess champion has a brain like Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal has a body! They are stronger, and faster, and better.  CC chess is chess with the 'athletecism' taken away.  In CC you don't need a great memory. (I've studied tons of openings! TONS! -- but I'm too stupid to remember them! -- this has nothing to do with my "understanding" of chess -- Carlsens remembers the lines he studies, I don't! Give me a DB for my openings and you've bounced my rating 400 pts right there... give Carlsen a DB and you've done very little for his rating, he's already got all the critical variations and indeed whole games he needs memorized.)

In a recent interview Carlsen mentioned calculating 15 to 20 moves ahead at times (he then says something to the effect of, "but the really important thing is to be able to look at the position 15 moves ahead and know whether it's advantageous or not") -- I'll never know if he's right or not, because I'll never calculate 15 moves ahead in the first place.  Carlsen takes that kind of thinking for granted, it's easy for him. He's also calculating 15 or twenty correct moves ahead which is understanding, but the ability to go 15 moves, right or wrong, and see that postion you've arrived at clear and sparkling in your mind, is huge, it matters, don't believe it doesn't.

In CC -- suddenly I can go 15 or 20 or 50 moves no problem. And I have the moves saved so I can reexamine them to my heart's content and without worrying about my feeble tendency to forget everything. I can research many of the positions I arrive at in my databases too. This is an ENORMOUS equalizer...

Why does anyone pay attention to that lowly IM Mark Dvoretsky? What could Anand, or Kasparov, or (etc. etc. etc.)have learned from an IM (okay, a very strong IM... he's essentially a non-super GM) -- Why would they study with Dvoretsky... Because Dvoretsky understands the game as well as anyone. He can't jump as high, he can't drain the outside jumper with .02 seconds on the clock...but he understands the game, he's a coach. He could probably be an awesome CC player.

Higher rating does NOT equal higher chess understanding, it equals higher chess performance -- Top OTB players are top performers.  Obviousy they have a very high degree of understanding... what I'm saying is there is not a one to one correspondence between understanding/rating/performance.

As Petrosian said before a World Championship match, "At the end of the day the winner will be the one who is better at, 'if he goes there, I go there, then he goes there, then I go...'"

CC dramatically changes what is needed for chess performance.

The reason that otb players (and not just the ones in the top 10) are better than the cc players is simple: great chess players want to be able to make a living off of playing chess and have prestige within the chess community, and this can only be accomplished by playing otb.

Here is what I believe: I dont believe any of the top ten CC champions today could play otb chess and be in the top ten. At the same time I believe any of the top 10 otb players today would be in the top ten in CC play if they tried. They arent going to try though because there is no money/incentive in it for them to bother.

When I was playing postal I was paired several times against a friend of mine who was an A class player otb and he had never beaten me in otb play and we had met several times. He had never broken 2000 in otb play. In postal I never beat him and in a couple of games he crushed me as bad as any GM ever did. I was not using a computer/engine and didnt have any at the time. This was one of the key incidents that caused me to give up postal play. The current postal champ isnt even a GM but an IM with a sub 2400 rating otb. Its a joke to compare top postal players with top otb players. Portugal also has a strong postal GM that is an IM otb and I have talked to him at length on this topic.

And I read JG27Pyth's response and I agree that being able to go over variations on a board rather than in your head does equalize the game (though OTB players still have a small advantage of quicker calculation). I guess, however, that I just feel that chess is meant to be OTB. It is meant to be calculated in your head and played by those chess "athletes." I'm biased, yes, but that's how I've always naturally felt about chess.

There is a HUGE difference between knowledge and working knowledge. What you JGPyth do is to fool yourself: you believe you studied tons of openings, but in fact, when playing OTB, you need a book to look up the right plan. You can't use them without the opening database near you. You just went mechanically over many games without understanding the plans behind those moves.  If you try to come up with your own conclusions, you would end up with judgements such as those made by Berliner in his book: "1. e4 is clearly inferior to 1. d4".

Actually, the more I research Hans Berliner (former CC world champion) the more I feel that he is a strong OTB chess player. Some examples:

1. Has played for the USA olympiad team (OTB) in 1952

2. One of his games was voted as number 1 game of the 20th century (Estrin -vs- Berliner) Played in 1965 - WAY BEFORE the advent of chess computers. The full list of top 100 games includes both CC and OTB.

3. He has created his own chess playing computer program, called Hi Tech. This is what he used/uses - not Rybka/Fritz etc. The position evaluation software in HiTech is based on his own 'system' for evaluating chess positions.

Food for thought!!

If someone writes a computer program to play chess, it doesn't mean he is a great player. Well, I have a question: if Berliner is such a good player and his book was published in 1999, why on Earth people continue to play 1. e4, even though Berliner "proved" that this is significantly inferior to 1.d4? Such a categorical statement made by a good player should have changed the way chess is played at high level. Yet, it looks that Berliner's recommendation was totally ignored.

I have also just discovered that Hans Berliner has a draw with Bobby Fischer (OTB) in US Championship, plus OTB draws against Lombardy, Sherwin and Byrne and a win against Bisguier. A very good OTB player I would say.

all of this about Berliner is definitely food for thought, at least.

Interesting that Costelus convieniently ignores all of the other evidence about Hans Berliner. A draw with Bobby Fischer...

Berliner was a good OTB player, no doubt, but todays CC GM's doesen't need to be that good.

If Annand, Carlsen and other elite OTB players had time to play CC, they would be in the elite there too.

I do not deny that Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik etc would also be elite CC players. Probably world champions.

If you only have to win against a strong engine, it's not so hard, the tough part is when you have to win against a strong human with engine help.

In a CC game without chess engine assistance the CC champion would get destroyed by the OTB champion. However, people who play advanced chess are so good at operating chess engines that they have often beaten super GMs (who also had access to the engines, but were not so proficient in using them). Nowadays computers are so strong that is all boils down to who will squeeze the most out of the machine's capabilities.

P.S. That's why I don't like CC.

Does annybody really like CC? I think they play CC, because they cant make it in  OTB.

Surely what counts is how the player uses the engine's analysis, and combines it with his own knowledge of strategy?