Author: blass uri
Date: 17:43:09 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 14:59:08, Komputer Korner wrote: >On July 31, 1998 at 10:40:52, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On July 31, 1998 at 09:22:44, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >>>On July 31, 1998 at 08:59:15, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On July 31, 1998 at 08:01:44, Komputer Korner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 30, 1998 at 10:14:15, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On July 30, 1998 at 09:21:19, Komputer Korner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 29, 1998 at 15:33:14, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 29, 1998 at 08:34:35, Komputer Korner wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 29, 1998 at 08:01:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Jeroen, you need Knut Neven's GIGANTIC BASE of 1.3 million games with less >>>>>>>>>>>than 4/10 ths of 1 % doubles. It has 3 games of 11.d5 It is hellishly complicated >>>>>>>>>>>but 11.d5 looks very good for white. It seems as if Anand did not properly >>>>>>>>>>>prepare for Rebel 10. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Jeroen doesn't work that way. He prefers to do it the hard way by typing move >>>>>>>>>>by move to the Rebel book instead of extracting an opening book from a large >>>>>>>>>>database. This because the result is simply better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Super GM's still do not have the proper respectfor micros! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>How do you know? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The super GMs know that the micros have't done the opening homework. This is >>>>>>>>>because the micros can't as of yet. There is no automated opening prep in the >>>>>>>>>micro coding. Thus Jeroen has to do it all. Since Jeroen is not a GM or strong >>>>>>>>>IM, he can't do as good a job as a player like Anand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Opening prep is not the equivalent of playing an over the board game. >>>>>>>>Given adequate time and resources a strong player like Jeroen is capable >>>>>>>>of unravelling complex opening systems as well as other chess positions. >>>>>>>>Think for a moment about correspondence chess players and the deep >>>>>>>>games they come up with. More than a few opening discoveries have been >>>>>>>>attributted to correspondence games. Should they be rejected because of >>>>>>>>a non-GM over the board rating? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Does Anand do all of his opening prep himself or does he share >>>>>>>>this task with his seconds? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Today Jeroen and anyone owning today's software can utilize these >>>>>>>>programs to see more deeply into games. We punch in a series of moves, use >>>>>>>>takeback, keep notes. Even I had the audacity to post awhile back that in >>>>>>>>game #7 Anand's 24th move, Bd2 should be reconsidered as not possibly >>>>>>>>best here. Instead I suggested Bg4, followed by a plan of putting >>>>>>>>the dark squared bishop on b2 and his remaining rook on g1 as a plan >>>>>>>>that might cause Rebel 10 more difficulty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are forgetting that the GMs use the same tools that you do. Kasparov has 2 >>>>>>>notebooks ( maybe more by now) running chess programs 24 hours a day searching >>>>>>>for novelties and a team of assistants to give him the results of their >>>>>>>analyzing. The world correspondence champion has an over the board (OTB) rating >>>>>>>of 2345 FIDE. I watched him play in the recent Canadian Open Championship (OTB >>>>>>>play). He is definitely no Kasparov. I have also watched other correspondence >>>>>>>GMs play OTB chess. They are definitely not at the level of real OTB GMs. So >>>>>>>given the same amount of time to prepare openings with the same tools (chess >>>>>>>programs), which person would you hire as your openings prep person, Anand or >>>>>>>Noomen? >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not know which person to hire >>>>>>A person can be better than anand in the ability to analyze positions and not >>>>>>be a grandmaster because (s)he cannot imagine the final position in a real game. >>>>>>It is important to have a very good memory in a practical game over the board >>>>>>and not only to know how to think. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The only way to know which person to hire is to do a competition in >>>>>>correspondence chess between the best correspondence players and kasparov or >>>>>>anand but we need sponsors to pay money for kasparov or anand >>>>>>otherwise they will not play. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am in no way judging Jeroen's competence. He probably is worth the >>>>>>>money that Ed is paying him. However you won't convince any reader of this club >>>>>>>that he can prepare openings as well as Anand or any other GM for that matter. >>>>>>>I rest my case your honour. >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Komputer Korner >>>>> >>>>>We are finding out these days as more and more OTB GM's are playing >>>>>correspondence chess. A prime example is the British IM Johnathan Penrose and >>>>>postal GM who once defeated Tal in an OTB game. He is now an old man and yet he >>>>>has been at the top of the correspondence rating list for the last couple of >>>>>years. Other OTB GMs are doing quite well at correspondence of course. Memory >>>>>and intelligence do not have a 100% correlation, but when it comes to the like >>>>>of Kasparov,Karpov and Anand, they are the best players period. Trying to >>>>>compete with them is a losing battle (correspondence chess or not). Don't fool >>>>>yourself into thinking that the top postal players could match the top OTB GMs >>>>>at either opening theory, correspondence play or analyzing. The super GMs are on >>>>>another level. >>>> >>>>I cannot be sure about that before I will see the super GM's beat the best >>>>postal players in correspondence chess. >>>> >>>>Theoretically it is possible the best postal players are better than the super >>>>GM's >>>>I do not know what is the practical situation. >>>> >>>>Over the board game and correspondence games are different games >>>> >>>>This is the same as playing over the board and playing without to see >>>>the board are different games. >>>> >>>>I know there are humans who can play without seeing the board(I cannot) >>>>but I am clearly better than them in over the board game. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>>>-- >>>>>Komputer Korner >>> >>> >>>I know a certain Canadian postal GM who has played in the OTB Canadian Closed >>>Championship and his positional knowledge was way below the IMs that were >>>playing in that Canadian Championship. >> >>how do you know his positional knowledge is below the IMs? >> >>maybe he can learn to understand the position after analysis >>I know Avi Keter (I think 2550 elo in correspondence chess) >>says the reason for his success is that he has no positional understanding. >> >>strong players who have positional understanding from experience >>sometimes believe to their experience and do not check lines they >>should check. >> >>Avi Keter is a 1800 player over the board. >>I heard he does not use computers to analyze the games he is playing >>and he is playing better than computers. >> >>This proves the big difference between the over the board ability and the >>correspondence players ability. >> >>Maybe the best garandmasters are even better but the point is that we do not >>know. >>Correspondence chess games of the best postal players are close to perfect games >>and I am not sure if it is possible to play significantly better. >> >>Uri > >If Avi Keter can achieve 2550 in postal play and yet be a 1800 OTB player, then >I have lost all respect for postal chess. There is a difference between postal chess and over the board chess In over the board chess good memory is important (positional understanding is something you remember from your experience and tou must have good memory in order to imagine positions) In postal chess knowing how to analyze is more important Sometimes humans who have good memory suppose wrong assumptions because from experience they know something that is not always right. They can be good over the board players because their assumptions are usually right but it is not the same in correspondence analysis. You can get your positional understanding as a result of analysis. I know avi keter is good at analyzing with writing trees. The fact 1800 player has 2550 in postal chess does not prove 2600 players in regular chess can do better(I believe they can but I believe most of the 2300 players in over the board cannot do better than avi keter) > I didn't have much respect for it >anyway and I did play it for 4 or 5 years. You have proved my point. Postal >chess is simply (almost ) going up and down the tree of variations backed up >with a good opening book. It is no different than a 1800 positional rated >computer computing at an extremely fast speed. The BIG difference is that given >the same amount of time in opening prep, a super GM can produce a much greater >volume of good opening analysis than a lower rated player can. This will result >in the super GM having an advantage with their opening repertoires. If you were >to ask Victor Sanokaev World CC Champion if his opening rtepertoire was as >bullet proof as Gary Kasparov's he would sheepishly admit that he is not in the >same league as Gary and that he Victor could never hope to accomplish what Gary >can in the openings. So this means that Super GM's will always have better >opening repertoires than the top postal players and or the top computers. Give a >SUPER GM just as much time for analysis as the top postal players take and there >would be no contest because 1)The GM's calculate faster 2) Their opening reps >are better 3) their positional understanding is so much better so they can prune >the tree so much more efficiently than the postal players can. Remember my >example of Postal GM and OTB IM Jonathan Penrose. Ask Jonathan Penrose if would >stand a chance against Gary or Vishy in a postal gane if the Super GM's could >apply all their time to the postal game. > >-- >Komputer Korner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.