Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 12:51:48 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Uri, You are correct, once again my friend. I don't have a FIDE rating and my OTB ability is suspect. I began as an OTB player but stopped competing after graduating from University and finding the need to devote most of my chess time to a full-time career. When I stopped, I was a poor player - only rated about 1700 USCF. Given rating inflation (from about 25 years ago) and so forth, that probably converts to about only 1900 FIDE today. In short, I wasn't very strong at all then. However, after abandoning OTB chess, I only had time for Correspondence Chess (CC). I then devoted a lot of study to chess and developed skills that I didn't possess when an OTB player. I have played OTB chess with friends FIDE rated between 2200-2450, although this is now quite infrequent. My friends have suggested that if I returned to OTB chess, I'd probably play somewhere around 2200 FIDE initially. But this is pure speculation. I've played well against strong FIDE-rated players when there's nothing at stake. However I have bad nerves and when money and rating points and tournament standings and ego are all on the line, my nerves crash while the clock keeps on ticking. Given my bad OTB nerves, and lack of time for regular OTB play to keep in shape, I don't think you'll read about any OTB adventures involving me untile after I reire. Conclusion: OTB skills and Correspondence Chess skills are often quite different. Also, the things that draw people to OTB chess (e.g. immediate gratification, meeting people, adrenoline rushes and emotional tension, a gambling element [more on this below], etc.) are different than what draws people to CC (e.g. silly errors and unsound openings are punished, CC is more objectively accurate, pure calculation skills and techniques are more importatnt than rote memorization of tricks/traps, minimal emotional tension, etc.) For example, I've deeply researched my openings (putting all my notes into Bookup) and have a large reference library. But in spite of my opening skills in CC, I don't have my openings memorized like an active OTB player must. Also, while I think I'm a good CC endgame player, I think one needs constant OTB practice (just like a golfer needs to contantly perfect his putting strokes with practice) in order to maintain OTB endgame techniques. Instead with correspondence chess, I only need to recall where my endgame reference books are in order to refresh my memory regarding how one "solves" various endgames. Finally, I think there's a strong element of Poker (gambling element) in OTB chess at my level. It's my perception that opponents often play 2nd-3rd rate moves/openings in OTB chess. They do this, knowing their moves are objectively inferior, in order to put the physical/psychological burden upon their opponents to solve these tricky situations, under tournament conditions with the clock ticking. This never happenes in higher-level CC games because second-rate moves get punished, given the time available to find a refutation. However, in OTB chess, I feel psychologically compelled to "refute" my opponents play, but then succumb to time shortages later which ruin the game. This sloppy chess repulses me, which is another reason I prefer CC to OTB chess. So OTB chess has a gamblisg element which many find attractive. Instead, CC has a "control" element; the stronger player controls the game and wins using "objective" skills, not tricks/traps. This may repulse those who thrive on the tension found in the OTB arena. What does this mean with respect to Computer Chess? My only experience was in my correspondence matches with Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32. My annotations demonstrate that I believed Nimzo 7.32 to be tactically superior, based upon the limited match of 4-games. However, Fritz 6a displayed some surprising positional skills and even gave the appearnance of having "human technique." As such, I felt that Fritz 6a was the stronger opponent...in general. I now own the very programs that I played against (I now own Fritz 7 too) and have made subsequent observations. I think Fritz 7 has the most "skill", compared to Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32, and thus believe it to be the generally stronger program. However, I remain more impressed with Nimzo 7.32 and Fritz 6a when the position on the board gets very sharp. In fact, even Fritz 6a often finds superior tactics than Fritz 7.008 in the same time period. I have no experience with Hiarcs. Sorry for being so long, but Uri and Tim raised some interesting points about player's perceptions of various prgrams. All the best, Stephen On October 22, 2002 at 13:15:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 12:48:23, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: > >>Dana, >> >>Both programs lack long term planning. Both programs will get better as our >>computers get better and faster. Good things come to those who wait. I prefer >>the newest computer program that I have. Right now that is Genius 7.0. Tomorrow >>it may be Fritz 8.x >> >>Out of the 10,000+ members at this site I doubt that we have more than 25 who >>are over 2200 ELO. Vincent Diepeeven and Stephen Ham are way above this level. > > >Which elo? >I think that getting 2200 elo in correspondence games is not an hard task when >people can use programs to help them. > >It is not personal against stephan and I believe that he is a good player and >got his elo not by using computers to help him. > >I also believe that losing 2.5-1.5 against computers in correspondence match >without help of computer is not something that most 2000 players can do but I do >not know if he has more than 2200 in normal chess. > >Do you know about more than 220 for Stephen Ham not in correspondence chess? > >Uri
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.