Will computers ever solve chess?

My result in the Championship Round in the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship was 13 wins, i draw, and no losses.

I am the only player in history to win all his games with Black in the Finals of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship. This is a record which will never be broken.

It is very difficult to make it into the Finals as to do so you must come in clear first in a preliminary section of all masters and experts.

After that, i challenged a very strong internet team--their top player rated 2498--[he is now a grandmaster]

It's not my goal to discredit the guy.   If he is who he says he is, then more power to him.   It just seems a little odd is all.   If I was an IM or GM, I would not allow my TT rating to be that low for very long.  I wouldn't stop until it was above 2000, at least.   But that's me.   I am all about the ratings.   I'm about winning too though.   That's why I study chess 80% of the time and only play 20% of the time.   I have to always be improving and winning or I'll lose interest in chess.   I'm like that with everything I do though.  

Jeff finds it difficult to admit he was just plain and entirely wrong. 

If you want to be good, just work on TT and forget the stupid rating that goads you into making guesses.  Better yet, go to Chesstempo, and do it there...their TT system is way better and not as much designed to exploit people that get off on ratings .

"If I was an IM or GM, I would not allow my TT rating to be that low for very long."

Why would you even care?  A titled GM/IM has no reason to be carefully tending a high TT rating.  That's like saying that Lebron James should make sure he goes down to the local playground to show his stuff and maintain his rep, and that if he doesn't he loses street cred and people might not think her can actually play basketball...why would he even care to impress a bunch of people that don't matter one iota to him?

Self esteem FTW.  Don't waste time worrying if you look like the best, just be the best.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe computers are to blame for the over-inflated ratings of today's GM's?  They probably spend more time memorizing openings and complete games than they do studying chess theory.   They all have fantastic memories, but they are basically just copying the moves made by the GM's before them (and by 3000+ rated computers).   Standing on the shoulders of giants, to make themselves look taller.   Unfortunately, I wasn't blessed with a photographic or eidetic memory.   If I had been, I might be an NM or even am IM by now.   IMO, Magnus Carlsen is not one of the top 5 greatest players of all-time.   His moves are very computer-like, which leads me to believe that he's just memorizing computer variations, 15-20 moves deep, getting a huge opening advantage because of it and then hanging on to win after he's out of book.   In fact, I've spotted some dubious moves in some of his games.   I can't say that about Fischer or Kasparov though.   They were both incredible players.

No, an engine spotted those dubious moves.  Engines are indeed responsible for some GMs skating by on memorization, but they usually fail when presented with "suboptimal" moves, like those you accuse Carlsen of .  But engines are also responsible for class level players thinking they know something about anything, when they don't.  They are responsible for Maurice Ashley making a jackass of himself on a regular basis for criticizing lines he wouldn't know to play on his best day.  They are responsible for a generation of "armchair quarterbacks" among chess players.

The argument that ratings are inflated (or, "over-inflated") is that the ratings themselves do not reflect the skill of the players today in the same way they did in the past. 

Your argument is that today's players are better because they have better tools and have learned from past generations. 

Your argument makes more sense and comports with the facts better than the alternative argument. BUT, your argument is actually in favor of there being no rating inflation over time. And that's how statisticians see the issue too!

A)  There's a LOT more to chess than just tactics.   Defense, positional play, pawn structures, weak and strong squares, king safety, pawn breaks, opening files and diagonals for your pieces, endgame techniques, etc. all play a big part in high-level play.   B) Ponz is not Lebron James.   He is a faceless, random player on the internet who claims to be Lebron James.  Therefore, he has no rep other than his online ratings.   I want to believe that he is who he says he is, but sadly, there's no proof.   Heck, I can't prove that I'm Jeff Green either.   I could be Garry Kasparov or Woodie Woodpusher, for all you know.  C)  If Ponz was titled, he'd have NM or IM in front of his screen name, in red letters.   Therefore, he's not titled.  

I'm talking about dubious moves that I spotted during the WCC and other games that people post on YouTube.  I didn't use engines.   They just jumped out at me as bad moves.   

The players rated 2800 today ARE that good. Their ratings are not inflated.

Why are they so high? Because they have the advantages of learning tools such as books and data bases and chess engines plus often a team which helps them. and of course very hard work. This is why if a great player came from the past [even Fischer] he would do poorly against the top players today.

If Morphy came here from the past--there would probably be a couple of thousand players who could beat him. The players today have advantages the players of yesteryear did not have.

There was a reason Fischer wanted to play Spassky a rematch--it was because Spassky at the time was only rated about 100th place in the top players in the world.

(A) Is there some reason you're spouting a litany things I may know better than you do?

(B) Correspondence titles are not allowed, and he has no official NM title, which he fully admits.  Once again, you're walking right into the same argument as many before you.  I'm not going to bother trying to educate you further, you can just keep on being the doorman who gets embarrassed by asking his own boss that owns the club to prove who he is...

Jeff, if you think Kasparov or Fischer didn't make mistakes, you really should go back and analyse their games again. 

Fischer and Kasparov were fantastic players, but they made plenty of mistakes. 

The only way to avoid making mistakes is to play the Fischer gambit and give up playing entirely!

Lol.  Maybe you need to read up on the definition of confirmation bias.  Carlsen makes bad moves but Fischer and Kasparov never did?

jeff [the disparager]

There are titles and then there are titles. Back in 1973 i met the requirements to receive a title but very bad luck left me at 2188 USCF

However, to me, winning the United States Correspondence Chess Championship [with a very strong score] is the only title i'll ever need.

My games, do speak for themselves. [not just the games in that one event]

I totally disagree.  I think that either Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy, Lasker or Botvinnik, at their prime, would beat any player alive today, including Carlsen.  Today's players only got good by memorizing the moves of those past greats.  Those legendary players invented the opening variations though, so they were much more creative and have real chess skills, besides just a great memory.   Fischer was well past his prime, in 1992.  That's why he chose to play Spassky, over say Karpov or Kasparov.  Age is a chess player's worst enemy.   Today's top players might have the edge in blitz though, since that is much more dependent on memorizing opening variations and less on real chess skills, such as endgame theory and positional themes.  

Please post a photo of you holding the plaque or trophy that you must have won for that event.  Then I'll believe it.   I guess that you could just search the internet and find a photo of anyone holding a plaque and claim that it's you though, so never mind.  :/  

Jeff

Todays top grandmasters did NOT get so good by memorizing moves of the past greats. 

To make such a statement shows you know very little about what it takes to be a 2800 rated player today.

It also shows you know very little about chess math. Very very few games today are won by memorizing moves of the past greats.

You are just plain and simply...wrong....

Actually i had such a photo and have shown in on my avatar it was entitled; "I can't believe I won a chess tournament" and it was a funny avatar.

But it is on my other computer which just broke down.

However, since you insist on making a fool of yourself--it is more fun to watch that...

If I was a doorman, of course I'd ask for everyone's ID, for the first few days, until I got to recognize their faces.   To do otherwise would be totally irresponsible.  

Jeff if you are not a doorman--so it it totally irresponsible of you to accuse someone on chess.com of not being who he states he is--unless you have sufficient proof for your negative and disparaging claim.

You do not have such proof--so your disparaging claim [s] are totally irresponsible.