Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 10:07:26 04/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2004 at 20:58:48, Mark Ryan wrote: >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? > >Many thanks for all answers so far. As usual, my question was probably a little >vague, and I need to clarify a few points. > >1. Most importantly, I had no intent to imply cheating by correspondence chess >players. In fact, let me quote the Wikipedia article on "correspondence chess": > "The use of chess books and chess computers is allowed, although many hobby >players voluntarily do without them. At the top level, however, computers, while >useful for checking relatively short-term tactics, are no match for the >strongest players if left to play a complete game." > >2. The basic purpose of my question was to attempt to discover if there was any >difference between the chess engines preferred by OTB players and correspondence >players. Also, I wanted to get a feel for the level of "respect" that >correspondence players have for the positional sense of various chess engines. >I realize now that it would be very difficult to answer any of these questions. > >Thanks, >Mark Hi Mark, I don't think that strong CC players have much "respect" for the positional sense of many engines. I know that I don't, in general. For examples of problems in relatively technical positions, see my review of Shredder 7 at ChessCafe.com. http://chesscafe.com/text/review365.pdf In my tests of modern engines in positions from my CC games, I find that the engines seldom select my moves in "positional" set-ups. When they do select my moves, I suspect they do so for reasons other than the ones that I had when I played my moves. Instead, the engines are generally looking for tactical solutions to everything, or looking for material to grab. However, I think that progress is being made with respect to positional chess. Recently, several engines found Fischer's a3 versus Miagmarsuren, as was posted here. While it's possible that the machines selected a3 for the correct reasons, they all incorrectly evaluated the position. So that makes me question whethe the move was selected for the correct reasons. Still, there's a great deal that I don't understand about engines. But in my circle of CC friends, most of whom are in the 2450-2550 ICCF range, engines aren't respected in "positional" set-ups. But to be honest, few admit to using engines in CC anyway. I suspect that engine use varies from player to player and position to position, and all for different reasons. 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.