Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Correspondence chess

Author: Jorge Pichard

Date: 10:25:32 03/05/01

Go up one level in this thread


On March 05, 2001 at 13:01:35, Jorge Pichard wrote:

>On March 05, 2001 at 12:14:56, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>
>>On March 05, 2001 at 12:12:16, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>>
>>>On March 05, 2001 at 03:31:32, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is impossible to argue which is the strongest chess program in
>>>>Correspondence Chess. It depends on a given situation. My experience furthermore
>>>>shows that in closed positions you can't believe the programs. It makes - in my
>>>>opinion - no or seldom sense - to let a program run for hours. You will get much
>>>>better results in trying out different moves and going move by move deeper using
>>>>the analysis mode.
>>>>Kurt
>>>With very limited experience I tend to agree. At times my programs agree on the
>>>move but with trial and error using human positional judgement I am able to find
>>>a better move (this not too often, but it has happened). other times I find that
>>
>>
>>OOps I just read my post and it sounds like I do not give crafty credit as being
>>one of the top programs, which of course it is---Sorry Bob, not intentional
>>
>>Wayne
>>>Tiger Gambit finds a better move. I have never had Hiarcs 7.32 find a better
>>>move, nor Junior 5 and until this morning I would have said that about crafty
>>>except the little bugger found a nice quiet move that set fritz6e back a little.
>>>Up till now I have used Fritz5e as the trial horse as It seeems that opponents
>>>are making fritz moves which gives me some sense of advantage being able to
>>>somewhat predict response, but not always.
>>>
>>>Thanks for response(s). I am curious if best programs at 40/2 are still best at
>>>unlimited time.
>>>I sorta have formed that opinion ahead of the post, but Crafty has surprised me
>>>with his move this morning. I must give crafty more chances now as up to now I
>>>have not.
>>>
>>>Thanks all
>>>Wayne
>
>According to steve Ham Nimzo 7.32 didn't have too many flaws, which were more
>likely corrected with the newer version of Nimzo 8. I noticed that the more time
>you allow Nimzo 8 the better it plays.
>
>Take a look at this great correspondence player note at this website:
>http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/

I also let Nimzo 8 analyzed some of the bad moves made by Nimzo 7.32 in game one
according to Steve, and Nimzo 8 after only 5 hours using a similar P.C. to the
one used for this match selected a better move in three of the critisized
bad moves.

Here is the first game played by Nimzo 7.32 vs Steve Ham which ended in a draw:

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/hamwhite.htm

>Pichard



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.