Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:28:32 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 15:51:48, Stephen Ham wrote: >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 It's very good to hear comments like these by people who have struggled with these programs in depth. There should be entire write-ups by people like you, about these observations, and compared to actual results in a somewhat objective, investigative manner, often. S.Taylor > > > >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.