Author: Dagh Nielsen
Date: 05:26:36 11/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
I'm FIDE 2165 or something, and I bet I can beat Hydra in a correspondence chess match :-) Human + computer is far superior to either alone, as was also demonstrated in the freestyle chessbase tournament where Hydra (not complete version admittedly) participated and got kicked out. You are perfectly right that some people are much better suited for Cor. chess than OTB chess because they lack some skills necessary in OTB chess. Two classical examples are Berliner and Estrin. Cor. chess requires a disciplined mentality, which goes hand in hand with a disciplined life style. Could Kasparov become Cor. chess WC? Well, he couldn't bacause he would be too busy with politics etc. In other words, it wouldn't be the real Kasparov, only some imagined Kasparov. It is somewhat similar to speculating how the classical masters (Morphy, Capablanca etc.) would do if they lived today. The short, simple answer is that then they simply wouldn't be the same persons, so the question is almost meaningless. Likewise, a Kasparov investing time in Cor. chess would be a completely other person than the charismatic, impulsive and politically involved Kasparov that we know today. Dvoresky may also have no inclination to spend time on Cor. chess, btw ;-) To sum up, yes, some practically weak OTB players can compete at the highest level in Cor. chess, and the best humans (+ their engines) are still a good deal better than pure computers at Cor. chess. Regards, Dagh Nielsen On November 09, 2005 at 05:24:54, emerson tan wrote: >part of the over the board play consist of ability to concentrate, long stamina, >good visualization, high concentration to avoid blunder, think fast so not as to >get into time trouble. Those who have problems mentioned above will be able to >compete in correspondence chess as long as they have good positional sense, >ability to plan, ability to create ideas and creativity. The tactical side will >be taken care of by the computer programs. > >Mark Dvoretsky seems to be able to dig out the secrets of a position. Judging >from the errrors of Kasparovs books, maybe Mark Dvoretsky is a better >correspondence player than Kasparov. Maybe the ultimate challenge for Hydra in >correspondence chess is not Kasparov but someone who is a good analysis. Kavalek >is also one person that comes to mind. Maybe there are stil lots of unknown out >there who can deafeat Hydra in orrespondence chess. The man plus computer vs >Hydra, the persons with the computer have a low rating. Maybe over the board >they just lose because of tatical blunder, poor stamina, lack of confidence to >go into long variation, but they have creativity, good planning, good positional >judgement. Correspondent chess against computer can still be interresting = )
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.