Author: Peter Berger
Date: 02:56:08 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2003 at 13:44:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 10, 2003 at 12:17:36, Peter Berger wrote: > >I did not look at the games but using a computer does not mean to play >computer moves. > >Computers can be used for analysis of positions that is not on the board >and I think that giving computer hours to analyze when you sleep may give more >information so it is better than nothing. > >I tend to believe that the top players do everything to help them and it >includes using computers. > I agree - it seems corresponcence chess is a dying sport. In maybe 10 years due to advances in hardware (and software, too) chessprograms will be virtually unbeatable. At this time top level correspondence chess will most likely be a battle of clever computer operators. It's more interesting how far away from this point we currently are. I read Junior Tay's and your interesting report about your play in the Israeli championship. I'd say chessprograms played and you helped them a little . There are probably many correspondence players who play like this, but they don't tell. Maybe you had a slight advantage as you understand chessprograms very well but on the other hand other players maybe use more than one PC and more CPU time which probably nearly equalizes this advantage. But your results are few and it's hard to tell how close to a corresponcence GM you could perform. Other correspondence players who use computers in a similar way usually don't post their experiences. How are your games in the Olympiad so far? Jorge brought Palciauskas up - I think players of his generation probably don't use chessprograms much. Also top level games in correspondence chess don't look like computergames most of the time. But you are right, this can't be decided only looking at the games. One observation is the ever rising draw ratio in top correspondence chess where chessprograms look like the best explanation to me. It also seems most won games are already mainly decided in the opening. On the other hand that makes Umansky's results even more refreshing and leaves some hope.
This page took 0.01 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.