Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 15:15:53 04/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2004 at 16:17:37, Mark Ryan wrote: >Hi Stephen and others: > >Which chess engines are most likely to be used by correspondence chess players? >Which engines are used to check for tactical shots, which for positional play, >which for the endgame, which for opening theory? Hi Mark, I'm sincerely flattered that you think that I know these answers. I don't. Instead, I can only speculate. Here's what I think I know, commingled with speculation. When I correspond with other strong CC players, engines are rarely mentioned. But when they are, there's usually mention of Fritz, but seldom any detail regarding which version. Instead, I speculate that those CC players who use engines, probably have more than one. They may have reached some conclusions regarding which engines seem most effective in certain positions. If correct, then they may use certain engines for some types of positions and other engines for other positions. Mark, you asked about using an engine for opening theory. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to say that one uses the engine to test book lines? If so, then I'd again speculate that engine use varies depending upon the nature of the position being tested. I've done this myself. I play the Dragon Sicilian as Black, but I don't think I'm a top-notch tactician. So I sometimes test my "TN's" against Shredder 8, just to see if there's any merit to my ideas. But while I like its calculating power in sharp positions, I never trust its evaluation. I always have to evaluate the position myself. Personally, I'm curious to know not which engines are used, but how they're being used. Are they used to reach an "objective" assessment/evaluation? Are they used merely to blunder check? Are they used in over-night analysis or in conjunction with a human who's testing ideas and wants an opponent to play an adversarial role? Do they use the "Deep Position Analysis" function? Are they used for ideas, for adversarial testing, blunder-checking, or for move generation? We've all heard of the infamous "postman" - somebody who merely plays the move generated by his/her engine. To what degree are CC players postmen? Well, it seems that most of us who were strong CC players before computers are also the stronger ones after computers. So I suspect that in general, that postmen haven't risen to the top levels yet. Most of us CC players think we can detect postmen. Some claim that postmen consume the same amount of time without regard for the position. I don't believe that one though. Instead, I've found that some players often play moves that hold their positions together via complex tactical contortions. However these moves often lack the "human" touch, in that they seem to have little positional/technical basis, and don't seem part of any plan. I suspect these people of being "postmen." I get more certain of this as the endgame approaches and their position rapidly collapses. Also, there's the argument that if everybody used engines, then we'd all have approximately the same ratings. Again, those who are known to have chess knowledge without computers are often on top even in the computer age. Anyway, those are interesting questions. If you ever find out the answers, I'd be curious to know. I think that Uri could give us better answers than I can. 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.