Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 11:33:08 03/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2003 at 12:44:43, Uri Blass wrote: >I do not say to strictly follow the computer moves but to analyze >different positions for hours. > >The positions that you analyze for many hours may be also some plies after the >root position. > >I think that in big majority of the cases the computer move after many >hours is the right move and there were games that I won in correspodecne games >thanks to the fact that my computer outsearched the opponent's computer. > >Cases when I chose move that none of my programs suggested after hours were >rare. > >Usually my only decision was which program to use or which program to >trust when games between chess programs can be used for that target. I know that it is common practice to use computer assistance in CC. I'm *not* talking about what I call the "move generators" or - if you wish "computer operators", people who use a program to generate each move. Correspondence chess is a different kind of chess if compared to OTB, there's no doubt about that. It's not much fun if my opponent loses his or her queen in a CC game just because of a silly mistake. That can be enjoyable in OTB, when there's pressure on your opponent, be it time pressure or psychological pressure. But hardly in a CC game, where you go for other kicks. In CC the fun is either squeezing your opponent by gaining positional advantages, accumulating to a level where even tactics are of no use anymore, or finding an idea that leads into tactical complications - and could end either very well or very bad - depending on *your own* skills. In my opinion, it's the very essence of winning or losing a chess game: making a mistake or profiting from one. But when assisted by a computer and having it analyse for hours these tactical complications are useless: the computer will tell you if they are good or bad. At least in 98% of all cases. So there's no need to "develop ideas" anymore: your own program or the program of your opponent will calculate the answer *and* thus the rebuttal. No one will play such an idea anymore. There's only one thing left: squeezing your opponent and his computer to death with small positional advantages, rendering all games to straws of spaghetti stretching out for miles without any significant detail. I play CC myself and observe a lot of people using computer assistance. The fact that most do and the moral complications (either if it's prohibited by rules or if it's accepted by an organisation) isn't relevant for me here. What I think is relevant is the fact that CC has become a lot more boring with the introduction of computer assistance. In practise tactics are almost banned, and what remains are dull and drawish games. Reality is: we can't check if someone uses computer assistance well enough, so let's accepted it. Reality is also: not the player's chess valour but his hard- and software determine the flavour of the chess game - and with it the very essence of the correspondence chess game. Should it be like the dog: why does it lick its balls? Because it can? We shouldn't use computer assistance just because we *can* translate chess into a mathematical formula. A lot has been gained with the rise of computer chess programs. The balance is very positive for me. But in this case we've lost a nice way to challenge each other's wits. "Testing an idea with a program" is definitely not in that league. J.
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.