I began playing CC because it gave me a chance to think and analyze more carefully, but to do it on my own.  The site I mostly play on (Scheming Mind) allows books and databases, but not computer analysis.  They say they can tell if you cheat, but I don't know about that.  For me this is a great combination.  Once you're out of the opening book, you're on your own.  But unlike OTB games I can take the time to try out moves and lines I see and thereby develop my planning and analysis skills.  For me, using the computer for analysis would mean I wouldn't develop as much as a chess player.  After the games, of course, I do computer analysis to see what I missed.  I find this process both pleasureable and instructive.

I'm sure people won't be just postmen for next many years.

 

I made analysis with Fritz 8, Rybka (free edition), Ruffian, Fruit and Toga. In qualification stage I ran overnight analysis sometimes to check a move I was planning to play. And in the morning the machine said it is still better to play another move which I was sure to be worse.

 

After such experience I gave up this kind of work and in the final I analyzed just sitting in front of my computer, using mouse to choose variations, to help computer to choose best moves quickly and to find variations by myself and check their results with the engine. There are MANY positions in which computers just can't do anything (in one game all my engines missed some positional problem and I missed it also - and the game was lost).

 

I know, Rybka is REALLY strong. It is the new era. In the NEAR future humans won't face computers in OTB matches at all. But still there is a place for humans when they have "unlimited" time for choosing the best move. I think I would win a 4-games match Piotr+Fritz8 against the newest Rybka (and I'm sure Fritz8 alone vs. Rybka would be something like 0.5-3.5). I won't check it, but I'm pretty sure :).

Hi Piotr

I think though many people are becoming more cynical about the "value-adding" aspect of humans with engines. The "advanced chess" maybe becoming too much like the engine playing with the human just as an Interface or "postman".

 

Probably what has emphasised this in the recent two years is the increasing of strength of Rybka. There seems to be a wider conception that Rybka's 1st choice will tear apart even ICCF SIM's - this has been implied just recently on the ICCF forum. If this really is the case, then ICCF players are maybe becoming more and more just "postmen" ?!

 

So maybe the formula-1 analogy is becoming blurred with just an automated computer-controlled car, with just the person with the remote-control having less and less influence on the car ?! I am not really sure of any good answers here though. I suppose there was a time - say 10 years ago, where it wasn't such a big issue, as engines weren't so good. But if they continue to get better, then so would the human "value-adding" aspect become less and less?! And probably more cynism and disrespect for correspondence chess ratings and titles would also be a result ?!.

 

If this is the case do you think the case for "Advanced chess" or even the concept of "Advanced chess" be becoming a significantly diminished concept with ever increasing advances in hardware and engine-strength ?! Would most cc games with "Advanced chess" rules, end up in draws, with the players as just spectators/ postmen  ?!

Yes, I like the metaphor of Formula 1 - the combination of man and machine. It's just another kind of sport. There are people running, there are miniature car races, and there are Formula 1 races.

It can be named "no-hold barred" - when you play in a CC tournament, it is just you and your books and computers, whatever you choose. But you should not ask anyone for help (even if it is still not possible to check).

I wouldn't agree you should know processors, hardware and things like that. You should know how to play chess! You need to know how to analyze with your computer, and what are computer's limitations. What kind of problems have all the engines, and in what positions to use one or another engine. If you read about chess algorithms (or you are just a programmer with such experience), you know how to use computers.

 

And yes, it is real fun to play with a guy who can use anything he wants.

And it is real fun to win. 

 

I'm going to post some analysis of my most interesting CC games soon.

Hi Piotr

I am interested in your comments. Do you think correspondence chess by its nature on the Internet or even before (postcards, Email) should actually be a "no-holds barred" version of chess ?!. If people want to play Over-the-board chess with its constraints which can be enforced to a large extent (no toilet breaks, metal detectors, etc), then they should stick to OTB Chess ?! 

For example the great majority of organisations allow the use of books, so I suppose the use of computers can be seen as another "tool" for trying to play a perfect game.

But in terms of playing strength it means potentially many more players in a tournament playing well about the strength of OTB GM's. This makes it like a kind of Formula 1 kind of chess, where instead of focusing on chess skills, things like the following become more important :

- Knowledge of processors and making use of hardware
- Tuning opening books of the engines
- Knowledge of strengths and weaknesses of different engines
etc

What is interesting though I think is the notion of being able to beat someone still independent of what assistance they can muster up. I.e. being able to beat another correspondence chess entity letting them use *anything*. Do you think there is an anology here between say ordinary boxing and say kick-boxing - where you can kick as well as punch, or is a better metaphor simply Formula 1 racing vs people Running round racetracks ?! The combination of man and machine?!

I was also thinking it is a bit unhealthy but my friend encouraged me to try playing in a CC tournament in 2003. I tried and managed to play well in qualification stage and to reach the final. And after this experience I just love this all-means-possible chess. Why?

I've been playing chess for the most part of my life, and I didn't know it is SO complex. I know one can find a win in many drawish positions. I know one can find a draw in many really hard positions. I know EACH move should be analyzed very deeply before playing it, because EACH move is the key move.

We don't allow to use computers for automated analysis of chess.com games (before they are finished). We don't allow and we can't do anything more. It's just gentleman's agreement. But in Correspondence Chess matches people play not only for pleasure (there are many tournaments with high prize pools). So what can be done to save CC idea? To allow using computers. I know it is really nice to play without computer assistance and we do it here on chess.com, but let's not mix these two things. I believe they both can survive.

I agree we should have the three levels of competition you mentioned. We already have it. And all of them are interesting!

BTW: I'm sure Rybka alone won't win with Bern+machine in a CC game. No way.

I may have missed something, but the clear impression given by this article is that the use of computers in correspondence chess is now sanctioned, if not officially; then de facto; at the highest levels of correspondence chess. To my mind, this is a depressing and unhealthy development for a number of reasons, the most of important of which being that what happens in the higher echelons of any sport is soon emulated by its devotees lower down. In other words, you or I may start a game at chess.com with someone who, having read the above, decides to imitate Mr. Bern and  purchase any one of the readily available supercomputer chess software programs and enlist its services against us. Instead of battling the opponent we thought we were battling, we wind up duking it out with Fritz, Shredder, Rybka, Hiarcs, or Junior. The result is a forgone conclusion: we lose.

If IM Bern seeks solace in the limitations of today's computers, he should consider that when they first came on-line a mediocre player could beat them. Ten years later masters could still win. A decade later Gary Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, and now Rybka can give GMs odds of pawn and move and still thrash them mercilessly.  

To reflect the times and the state of technology we will now need three levels of competition, namely, brain and board only, brain computer vs. brain and computer, and computer vs. computer.