Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 08:42:11 03/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2003 at 10:37:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 10, 2003 at 10:33:31, emerson tan wrote: > >>On March 10, 2003 at 07:43:25, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 10, 2003 at 07:27:45, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On March 10, 2003 at 06:40:07, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 05:58:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 05:34:07, emerson tan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>what program is best to play correspondece chess against humans? >>>>>> >>>>>>Unless you are playing against Victor Palciauskas, Shredder 7 or Deep Fritz >>>>>>should be excellent programs to analyze any position. >>>>> >>>>>Not exactly true >>>>> >>>>>Now the challenge would be >>>>>>the chess knowledge the the user has, in case the program choose the wrong move, >>>>>>since you have to be able to select the best move based on your knowledge >>>>>>of the position. This is where the combination of a good program such as >>>>>>Shredder 7.04 and a good correspondence chess player like Steve Ham can make a >>>>>>world of a difference. >>>>>> >>>>>>Jorge >>>>> >>>>>Shredder 7 is not the best for Correspondence game analysis. >>>>>The evaluations are not stable and therefore you cant trust them. >>>>>It show you +1.22 in a position and you think this has to be big advantage for >>>>>white and when you make the move suggested you get -0.09. You make another move >>>>>and you will get +1.34 again. and so on. >>>>> >>>>>Fritz 8.008 or Fritz 7.008 are much better for Analysis mode. >>>>>Shredder 7 might be good for over night analysis. >>>>>It is also good for the endgame and it might be good to find ideas in the >>>>>middlegame. >>>> >>>> >>>>Probably I was wrong to recomend Shredder 7.04, but in correspondence Chess even >>>>if you choose Fritz 8.0008 or Hiarcs 8 for Analysis mode it won't be sufficient >>>>against a strong correspondence player; not to even mention Victor >>>>the World correspondence chess champion. I remembered back when Mike Valvo >>>>crushed pretty badly DT in a 2 games match. Mike crushed it even though DT was >>>>thinking many hours per move, and hitting 30 plies in its search. >>> >>>I do not believe that deep thought hit 30 plies brute force in their search. >>>I even do not believe 20 plies in the middle game for deep thought. >>> >>> I remember >>>>reading how shocked the programmers were at how badly the program lost. But >>>>probably by now chess programs such as: Hiarcs 8 and Deep Fritz have progressed >>>>to the point where they don't get crushed by IM like Mike Valvo, but players >>>>like Victor Palciauskas (Correspondence World Champion) can still beat any >>>>program in Correspondence Chess. >>>> >>>>Jorge >>> >>>I doubt if they can beat it without computer help. >>>It is known that top correspondence chess players use >>>computers to help them. >>> >>>I also have doubts if Palciauskas can be sure of beating chess programs >>>even when computer help is allowed. >>>I suspect that the computers have good chances to get at least a draw. >>> >>>I think that a player with many computers only to analyze chess positions may >>>have a significant advantage in correspondence games because I believe that most >>>of the correspondence >>>players use only one or maybe 2 computers for their games and they do not >>>give their computer a full time job in analyzing chess position. >>> >>>It may be interesting to know how many computers does Palciauskas use for his >>>games(I will not be surprised if we find that he has one computer for every >>>opponent). >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I think a chess player who has chess knowlege and is good at generating ideas >>will become a good correspondence player, you dont need to be tactically gifted >>(able to visualize part) because you can work it out by moving the pieces. The >>computers cannot still generate ideas and they are still limited by the horizon >>effect, running the computer 24 hours can hardly reach 25plies on early >>positions. Correspondence chess is the next challenge of computer after it beats >>all human players over the board. > >I think that running the computer for 24 hours can help. >I do not say that chess knowledge cannot help but these things do not >contradict. > >It is possible that the same player also think about ideas in the same time that >his programs work and decide which positions to analyze based on his ideas. > >Uri To strictly follow the computer moves [even after a thinking time of many hours] is nonsense. It is much more important to check ideas and tactics. In correspondence chess you can go move by move deeper and deeper just analysing each [own or suggested computer] move. But you should analyise with the computer over the board. It's of course a time consuming matter, but that's correspondence chess anyway. Kurt
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.