Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:16:20 11/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2005 at 20:54:20, Dagh Nielsen wrote: >On November 09, 2005 at 20:19:56, Mark Ryan wrote: > >>On November 09, 2005 at 08:26:36, Dagh Nielsen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>The question might be "almost" meaningless, but not completely meaningless. It >>is human nature to speculate about such things, and even silly speculation can >>occasionally lead to surprisingly meaningful ideas. In any case, we can say for >>sure that Kasparov played a brilliant game in the Kasparov-versus-World internet >>correspondence chess game. >> >>Cheers, >>Mark > >Yes, of course the degree of meaning depends on the context and purpose of >asking the question :-) The line of thinking I gave is at least relevant when >people engage in such discussions and expect or promote a "correct answer". One >point is that in this situation such a quest for a "correct" answer is >meaningless, so people would be better off identifying another purpose of the >discussion. > >High level corr. chess requires so much time that it alters the persons playing >it, as compared to not spending time on it. It requires devotion in solitude >with no instant gratification and general public recognition in sight. > >I guess I was addressing the question often stated, how well would top OTB GMs >fare if they played Corr. chess. The problem is that IF they played corr. chess, >they would be fundamentally different persons. > >In short: When one synthesizes the talent of a top OTB GM with the character >traits of a top CC GM, one has constructed a new person, and that construct >would in many cases not be practically tenable. > >Regards, >Dagh Nielsen I think that you overestimate correspondence players. correspondence games test mainly the ability to use computers wisely and today weak players with rating 1600 who use computers correctly can become easily correspondence GM's. I think that the level of correspondence GM's today is a low level so a lot of computer time together with average of one hour per day for correct active analysis with the computer is clearly enough to be one of the best players. You only need not to think that computers are stupid and not reject their ideas with no computer analysis that support that the move that you suggest is better. I think that rejecting computer ideas as stupid without analysis or using computer only to blunder check your ideas may be the main problem of part of the strong players but they can easily learn not to have that weakness. Another problem based on my experience is that for some reason some strong players over the board refuse to use computers for hours for analysis and part of my wins were because of mistakes that programs can easily avoid with hours of search but not with few minutes of search. Uri
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.