Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess and computers

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:48:12 08/15/98

Go up one level in this thread


On August 15, 1998 at 14:23:14, Fernando Villegas wrote:

>Dear friend:
>My experience is not related with postal chess, but I observe myself enough to
>realize that increments of thinking time even in the course of a normal game has
>an enormous effect. Probably that happens because the way we think. We don't do
>too much more calculations, but we can perceive in a better way the position. We
>can get a better gestalt, an understannding of the situation that is
>qualitatively above the precedent one. I insist we "can", not we must. Computers
>just get more stuff from his calculations and althought that involves, also, a
>better perfomance, I suppose his increments are lesser than they are in our
>case, with the exceoption, of course, of specific positions where specific
>tactical shots appears just after a ply level has been reached. But then, if we
>play much better with more time and computer play "just" somewhat better, then
>the conclusion is that for a computer to become a master in postal chess is a
>lot more difficult than to be one in normal competition.
>But this is very complex. Probable there are as lot of exceptions. Specuially I
>am thinking in the fact that better undesrstanding not always involves better
>results. At the end a great fraction of chess games are won or lost on tactical
>ground, no matter what. If so, perhaps computer keep his edge over us anyway.
>But, at the same time, postal chess is less prone to tactical mishaps. We
ll,
>this issue, as you see, arise more questions than answers.
>fernando


Computers are really not a threat of any kind at correspondence chess.  We had
a good such match on r.g.c a few years ago between IM Mike Valvo and Deep
Thought.  Deep Thought totally blew mike out at blitz, although we never had
any 40/2 games to compare them there.  But at the "correspondence level" used
in the two game match, Mike won both, and he won both easily.  Far
out-calculating the "beast" which was left on computing 24 hours a day non-stop.

He even sacrificed a pawn to reach a position that was simply unplayable by
the machine, although it took it several moves before it "caught on."  I
suspect folks like Hans Berliner would also laugh at the idea, although at the
lower levels, computer impact could be felt.  But you aren't going to find a
2400 correspondence computer for a long while...



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.