How good are CC players

I think such news are very common Robert:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2461

Where you can see that it's all about time and engine power: a team of two players <1700 + an ordinary engine defeated teams of GM's+engine. Knowledge is not important.

As for Berliner: he drew with Fischer when Bobby was only 14-15 and far from the top. Many other players defeated Fischer at that time. Anyway, I don't argue about Berliner's OTB strength. However, if he is such a great player, why everybody ignored his "proof" that 1. e4 is inferior to 1.d4?

I am not at all convinced this is true and I wonder what evidence there is to support it -- IMO a strong, patient CC player (without an engine) is playing strong moves... I don't believe a strong (champion) CC player would "get destroyed" by anyone at CC -- that's the nature of strong CC chess... it tends to be pretty damn solid chess. I can't recall, but which world champion was it (maybe Tal?) who said -- "Perfection? I leave that to the CC players" 

Is there any objective source of data regarding how CC champions have fared against World Champion caliber OTB opposition. Alekhine and Keres both played CC... I wonder, did they "destroy" their opponents in CC? 

Do we have Alekhine or Keres' CC games preserved, surely they're around, but I don't think I've ever seen them. 

Correspondence and Freestyle are two totally different games.  Apples and oranges etc.

Freestyle events use a 60 minute time control which puts a VERY high premium on computer skills and dexterity.  Big hardware and cat like reflexes are the two most important qualities.  GM's are usually at a big disadvantage in these kinds of events unless they manage to steer into the type of endgame that allows them to outplay the engine when the clock is ticking.

Nakamura is one GM that could clean house in Freestyle given top flight hardware.  He's the complete package: Computer skills, reflexes, vast experience and deep understanding of anti-engine techniques and a 2700 player to boot.  If there was any money in it, there's no doubt in my mind that he would dominate Freestyle.

Incidentally, Nakamura would also be my pick for the next Man vs Machine event.  He can tie engines in knots better than anyone who's ever lived.  Even Rybka.  The only question is whether or not he can still do it at longer time controls since what works in blitz might not translate when the engine has more time to think.

apple, meet orange.

CC is not really even chess anymore.  In the old days (pre WWII) most of the best GM's were also CC players because their options for competition were so limited.  But they also had relatively limited resources for research, maybe a subscription to a monthly chess journal from a big city, and a small library of chess books at home and a few more books at the local club.  At the end of the day (or week) they still had to choose the move and lick the stamp.  You can bet that when Euwe or Alekhine was playing CC, that the quality of chess was scary indeed.

Today however, any bright kid that decides to spend time playing CC instead of COD or Halo can probably make CC GM in relatively short order.  I am not talking average kid, but the bar for mastery of CC is a LOT lower then the bar for OTB mastery.  Modern CC has about as much in common with real chess as bullet chess has in common with real chess.  Modern CC games can be very very good quality, but they are not really chess.

I saw a robot on TV the other day that could drive a golf ball 350 yards in a perfect straight line over and over again.  I doubt it would be able to win the US Open though.

This is an interesting thread, but I don't understand the basis of arguments!

Playing OTB (read lots of games thinking at lightning speed) helps develop an intuition and power of visualization (without any physical board - people are always tactfully silent on this point) for chess positions. Just by looking at a position most OTB masters (read GMs, IMs, WGMs) can instantly figure out strategies - it only takes some time to work out the tactics.

On the other hand a CC player (like me) has nowhere near that sort of intuition - CC players have to spend a long time with a chess board (or Analysis Board in chess.com) moving the pieces back and forth, trying out variations physically to gather that intel.

Thus what OTB players does in minutes will take an hour or more for the sluggish CC player to achieve (unless he was a past OTB player whom age has slowed down). Plus he/she will miss some brilliant moves unless he/she uses some form of Kotov's Tree Analysis (or my "patent-pending"  time-consuming "notepad analysis" - but that is another story).

Thus if OTB players only have the patience (to study deeper than they usually do in OTB), they can "destroy" (as Natalia has aptly said) any CC player on this planet.

Now a former OTB player turned CC player is a different genre altogether (like Berliner - like our most respected Zyriab, 66_Mustang and others of chess.com). They have that intuition plus leisure for lengthy analysis - they can meet any OTB player if they spend sufficient time on a game/position.

Everybody says that unassisted CC players can reach the same playing strength as World's top GM, although by working much more. OK, then why all the great positional ideas, which changed the way we play an opening, appeared in OTB games? If the CC players are so great, why they failed to develop new theoretical ideas?

 Because there are FAR MORE OTB games played each day than there are CC games. Developments in theory are naturally much slower in CC than OTB.

I doubt that there are so many significant games OTB games. Anyway, you say that CC games contributed to developing theoretical ideas, although not as much as OTB games. I'm sure that people like you, accustomed with using various databases, could give specific examples. So please point out CC games which introduced significant theoretical novelties that appeared since then in many OTB games at the highest level.

Let us imagine if Anand (current OTB Champ) plays Joop Van Oosterom (current CC Champ) in a 12 game match, 6 CC (e.g 5 days per move) and 6 OTB (classical chess time controls).

My prediction: OTB     Anand 6-0 Oosterom

                      CC      Anand 4-2  Oosterom

10-2 to Anand. Maybe the odd draw in a CC game.

If Anand played Hans Berliner (at his peak - now he is 80 years old +), the score might be a little closer, but Anand would still win very convincingly. Hans is pretty decent OTB though (IM standard), having played for US olympiad team, draws/wins against GMs (as I mentioned earlier). He may get the odd draw with Anand OTB. Maybe 3 1/2 - 2 1/2  (to Anand) in the CC games.

 I am not at all accustomed to using chess databases. I still believe that OTB chess masters are stronger in general, read my post above.

I asked for specific details, not for useless speculations based on nothing. Also, as you can see, the starting point of this thread was a review made by J. Silman for a book written by Berliner. I don't agree that "in general Silman has harsh reviews", since I encountered enthusiastic reviews written by him. Until now nobody was able to point out, clearly, with examples, why Silman is wrong in that review and why Berliner is in fact right.

To be clear, I am absolutely astonished that the top CC player nowadays, even with unlimitted time and patience (and a strong computer), comes up with judgements like "1.e4 is an inferior move".

Costelus you do not need to be rude.

I have given my opinion and presented some intersting facts on this topic.

Here are some facts:

(1) databases are usually contructed from OTB games, not CC games

(2) All innovations, new variations came from OTB games - I dont remember seeing any variation named after any CC player or event.

(3) Berliner's concept that d4  is "superior" to e4 was never accepted by any prominent personality. Rather Fischer's comment on e4 "best by test" is still universally recognized and accepted.

All these goes to show that deep in out hearts we know and accept OTB players are superior to CC players (I say this even though I am a CC player).

'nuff said.

Is there not the Berliner variation of the Sicilian Defence (named after Hans Berliner?)

I agree with most of what you have said though.

mkirk,

good point! I could not find out whether that is after Berliner played that variation OTB or while he was playing CC - he was a prominent OTB player before...

can you give me any link to the variation you mentioned? I don't know about it...

Please visit this link for a full discussion of the Berliner Variation of the Two Knights Defence (not sicilian defence - my mistake)

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesz4a6/current/id13.html

First off Hans Berliner was trying to get attention and also if you have read any of his other articles is extremely opinionated. He was a top player in the US but rarely played abroad.

While I would not call Jeremy "harsh" he is extremely opinionated and can be quite argumentative but overall I agree with his assessment of Berliner's book.

I am surprised no one mentioned (or I missed) Kasparov vs the World to show the strength of correspondence play by a top GM.

Specific TN's are tough to point out as theory is dynamic not static but an example I would give is from Ham-Trimpi USCF Postal event 1996 in the Scandinavian 1. e4 d5 2 ed Qd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 e5 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bf3 7 Qf3 Bb4 8 Qb7 Bc3 (given in Lutes book on this opening) 9 Kd1 Bd4 10 Qa8 Qb6 --all given in Harman/Talbut book--Ham played 11. a4! Also much of the Marshall Gambit (Ruy Lopez) theory  has been developed through CC play.

I agree with Reb that Carlsen,Anand would not spend as much time on CC as there is no money so the pool of players is not as strong and tends to be dominated  amateurs. Quality of play even before computers was quite strong-and also nerves can be less of a factor (Ivanchuk should perhaps try CC) --they are different games and should be enjoyed by such. Do we appreciate some of the older endgame studies or combinations of past hero's that have been proven flawed by today's computer? Top CC players are good--exact measurement is impossible. 

I mean MAIN line theory, not small variations mentioned only in a book dedicated to some specific opening. As far as I know, the b5 variation in two-knigths defense is played very rarely at high level, since it is quite hard for Black to get a good position if White knows what he's doing. Common, it is impossible! If you claim that CC players were so good, that they produced higher-quality games than those played OTB, then logically there must be some important theoretical improvements! The excuse that "most DB's do not contain CC games" is of course false: a simple search on google reveals that there are at least 2 databases with only CC games.

 Am I missing something? Rybka?  Damn, I feel pretty good then for being 1800 not using assistance.  Not sure if that is valid. 

It's not allowed to use engine help on this site.