Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess

Author: Stephen Ham

Date: 08:15:37 05/23/03

Go up one level in this thread


On May 23, 2003 at 04:59:53, Angelo Ciavarella wrote:

>In response to my question as to whether the champion CC players can outperform
>computers,FM Tom Brownscome of the U.S. Chess Federation said that most people
>believe that the world's best CC players are better at CC than the current best
>computers.He also said that most top-level analysis is done by master-level
>players working with computers.

Dear Angelo,

Clearly this is a topic of interest to you, given your repeated posts. As a
dedicated Correspondence Chess player myself, I have some interest in this
matter as well. Thanks for your interest.

Indeed, as of the present time, I think that most human CC players do believe
that the very top CC players, playing without move generating chess engines, are
superior to the best chess engines in CC. Personally, I think they're wrong.
Before I try to state my case, please allow me to provide some perspective for
you.

I tried to test this myself, since my rating hovers around ICCF-2500. So in
December 1999, I played four CC games versus the top rated chess engines of that
time, Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32. They were assisted by one of the fastest
computers of that day. I played without any computer aid. See below for the
match conditions and the result.

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/ham.htm

In hindsight, in order to try to entertain the masses, I hurt my prospects. I'm
not making escuses...I lost fairly. However, I moved rapidly, at the rate of
approximately 1-move/day, and also published my notes live (just annotating the
games took a lot of time). Also, my only time for analysis was after my family
went to bed, so during the late night hours, I was already fatigued. I had an
advantage in 3 of the 4 games, but failed to win a single game. Why? Human
error. Machines just don't make the mistakes that we mortals do. Alsthough
insuffucient games were played from which to draw any conclusions, I must say
that I was shocked at how difficult it is to defeat the silicon monsters. For
the record, I did not play in anti-computer style, since the point of the
experiment was for me to play as I would against a human. After all, in CC these
days, we never know who/what our opponents are!

My point though is that since late 1999, there have been large gains in chess
engine strength and hardware speed. Also, I'm not anywhere near being considered
one of the "best" CC players. Maybe someday...;-)

Since then, Uri Blass has won the Israeli CC championship using only chess
engines to generate his moves. Uri selected moves generated by a number of
different engines, so there was some indirect human interevention. Still, the
point being that the games were won strictly by chess engine moves.

Then, Gandolf 5.0 challenged 4 very strong CC masters (including Kenneth Frey,
rated around 2600, thus one of the highest rated CC players in the world) to a
match of 1-game apiece. Gandolf isn't even considered to be a top-rated engine.
The result - 4 long draws. More details can be found here.

http://www.rebel.nl/emailchess/index.htm


Conclusion: While insufficient evidence is available from which to draw
conclusions, I see no reason to believe that the best unaided humans are
demonstrably superior to chess engines in CC. Yet another example is Kasparov
versus the World. While the World team had several young OTB masters helping to
find candidate moves, the actual moves played were selected by The World
players, many (most?) of whom used chess engines. Kasparov was fortunate not to
lose that game. We humans, with our egos fully intact, find it difficult to
accept and admit that chess engines are at least as strong as our best humans.
That's why we'll continue to read claims that human CC skils are superior to
silicon. But I agree with Uri Blass - if a strong chess engine with a fast
computer is allowed to calculate for 24-hours/move, then it has excellent chanes
for victory against the best humans.

I accept that my skills are at least matched by a machine. Still, I enjoy
playing correspondence chess without any machine assistance in generating my
moves. After all, why do we play chess at all if we don't expect to stimulate
our own minds from the competition? So Angelo, I hope to see you playing CC some
day...hopefully without any machine assistance too.

That's my thoughts. What are yours?

All the best,

Stephen



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.