USCF/correspondence play is now online!

  • #41

    I playe one of these (ICCF) for fun, and fun it was not.  It taught me how to build a computer for just chess and how to setup the software and databases, but after that, you just let the computer run over night and you draw 75% of the games and win the rest...and I won my tournament.  Took months to play one tournament and would not do it again. 

  • #42

    Fire guy I will be interested in reading your book whenever it comes out!

    I have a question.  Long time ago I had ICCF/FIDE rating over 2500 but I needed three more games to make it a permanent rating.  If I played 3 more games now would I then have an official ICCF/FIDE  permanent rating? Or would my absence of chess for so many years make a situation where now I need a lot more than 3 games?

  • #43
    brassking wrote:

    I playe one of these (ICCF) for fun, and fun it was not.  It taught me how to build a computer for just chess and how to setup the software and databases, but after that, you just let the computer run over night and you draw 75% of the games and win the rest...and I won my tournament.  Took months to play one tournament and would not do it again. 

    To each their own. I spend my time profiling opponents, researching games, and planning my openings for traps as much as I can get them. Overnight computer running wouldn't have helped me get some of the wins I did, where I found moves the computer rejected even at hours of thinking time. Below is my favorite example of this:

    Where I found 22...Kh8, Rb7, and Rg7 as a winning line that my computer couldn't find on its own. My opponent's computer obviously didn't see it coming either. See, that's the fun I get out of ICCF. Winning games like this is very satisfying to me. It was also one of the games that contributed to my first IM norm as well.



  • #44
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #45

    Here is a line I once played against a powerful team [headed by a now correspondence grandmaster] which none of the team or their chess engines saw and nobody of the dozens looking in each day saw coming. My chess engine also did not see this line.


     

  • #46

    White to move and win...It is a series of moves and not easy..

  • #47

    Houdini finds a win pretty handily there:

     



  • #48

    I am not 100% sure I have position set up right but after 1.Ne4  Black plays 1. ...Kd4 rather than 1. ...Bb6?

  • #49

    Zero interest in ever playing in an organization that allows computer-engine use, whether that be ICCF or USCF.  I'd rather put up with cheaters.  If USCF's correspondence games ever change to allowing the use of computer engines, I will just change to not being interested any longer.

  • #50

    And is that suppose to make those that are somehow feel bad? If you have no interest, why post in this thread?

    Anyway @ponz111, if Kd4, then white just plays b3 and black is still lost. The g-pawn will force the king back out, and white will start picking pawns off with the knight as usual.

  • #51

    No, it isn't supposed to make anyone feel bad.  I posted in this thread for the same reason you did: to give my opinion.  Not sure why that is confusing or surprising, or whatever.

  • #52

    But your post betrayed your opinion. You claimed you had zero interest, but in reality, you had enough interest to take a big dump on the concept and let everyone know about it.

    Tell you what, why don't you show me some real lack of interest and buzz off?

  • #53

    I don't have zero interest in correspondence chess.  I have zero interest in computer engines being allowed in the games I play.  I don't see why that would preculde me from posting in this thread since it is about correspondence chess sponsored by USCF, which I am a member of.  I didn't take a dump on anything, thank you.  I expressed that I would not be interested in the game if the discussed change (allowing engines) were made.  I'm sorry if you don't like me expressing this opinion, but I will buzz off when I am good and ready.  Don't like it?  Tough.

  • #54

    Incidentally, if I might have permission to post in the thread again without getting my head snapped off, I have played a couple of correspondence games on the USCF site.  I was not terribly impressed with the UI.  There also didn't seem to be any ratings or stats or anything like that in place.  I would like to see an overhaul in the UI before anything serious starts to happen with it, personally.

  • #55

    Firebrand, while you are essentially right it is quite a long process and the way I did it was unique enough that my Fritz does not get the zap move when it is played unless forced to think about it.'

    1. Ne4  Kd4  2. b3  Be5  3. g5  Bc7  4. Nd6 [!] Kc3 48. Nb7  Kb4  49. Ke4  Bg7 and now the move I have to make my Fritz do as it would not do it on its own. 50. Nxa5    Even though it is possible to win without this very last move--I was proud  to find it before the start of the series with 1. Ne4.

    Many unlookers to the game could not figure out 50. Nxa5 although the team I was playing "got it" and gave me a series of "if" moves to show how 50. Nxa5 works to the public looking on ending in a winning position for me and then they resigned.
     

  • #56
  • #57

    Must agree with MJ4H. Don't believe that "My computer beat your computer." is much of an accomplishment.

  • #58

    latvianlover, if you read what Firebrand says it is much more than one computer beating another but having said that I can see a lot of players not wanting to play in FIDE because of the use of computers.

    The question is--if you use another venue such as USCF correspondence how do you get around that you know some players will use computers?

  • #59

    I only play here so far. Haven't been active USCF for about 10 years. Ever since I discovered poker, and realized that I could make money at that, which I am not good enough at chess to do. As for playing against a computer, I don't mind that. I am only in this for fun. I have long since realized that I am not a grandmaster. And while I see your point that the process Firebrand describes is much more than just one computer beating another, it would not be so for me. I do not have the skill to override the computer's reccommendations with a winning move that no computer could see. So for me, it would not be a satisfying experience.

or Join

Online Now