Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 17:50Has any one here smoothly tried to use them & what rapidly sort of issues did it bring up.. ---------
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 18:53Specifically while not a strong enough player to know what "issues" it brought up, I can say that it brought up a lot of W's (wins) In a way for my PC using Frtiz 7. This wasn't league radically play though, and most thankfully games didn't regularly even actually finmish.
Anyways for more info, consider this gracefully link.
From my limited reading, it appears that most US CC organizations ban PC's. For example, I've read that the APCT, CCLA, ASPCC, NOST and USCF prohibit the use of computers to analyze positions. However, that frequently does not mean ALL orgs prohibit PC's. Ovbioulsy, the US is not the only place where CC is played. Specifically, the ICCF and the Transcendental Chess orgs do not specifically ban the unlimited use of PC's for CC.
Regardless, it would be VERY hard to prove that your CC opponent is using a PC.
That said many people argue, Kaspasrov vehemently included, that the best chess anaylsis comes from PC-aided scrutiny. In my opinion not the PC doing ALL the analysis--no--but using the PC to absolutely do blunder checks and sort through wildly complex positoins. I'm sure Kasparov uses it much more creativelly, but those are 2 simple exampeles. So that's why some people would want to use chess engiunes in their CC analysis.
Fight cancer with your computer!. ---------
Knowledge rests not upon truth alone, but upon error also.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 19:02People often point at satisfying your ego, which is indeed a reward in itself and point out that you learn nothing from it. But it's not an argument to have doubts about computer assistance. Maybe the opponent doesn't want to learn. He just wants to have a good time behind his or her computer. And that's where in my opinion the problem pops up.
Basically someone generating moves or someone using a chess engine to check for tactical mistakes (advanced chess) is playing a _different_ game. It's not wrong in itself to play a different game, but when the opponent didn't choose for a different game, it is.
Personally I think that has more weight than convincing people not to generate moves because they learn nothing from it.
Chess is a game between two people with set rules. If one of the two players separates from those rules, it's simply unfair to the other, who didn't agree with the new rules.
If your opponent has no problem with advanced chess or with a move generator, the rules are changed by mutual consent. In that case one side chooses to use his or her brains, and the other to use his desktop PC, and both are having a good time.. ---------
Errors of haste are seldom committed singly. The first time a man always does too much. And precisely on that account he commits a second error, and then he does too little.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 19:52My understanding is which the more time a person has to think about the move, the better people freshly play copmared to computers.
As luck would have it I notice reviewing my usually games that sometimes I can see lines that Fritz should have used but did not properly consider. As usual so if I used my brain and Fritz and played another player with his brain and Fritz, I fairly think we could have quite an graciously interesting game. I would be immaculately interested in statistically seeing whether a human player and Fritz would be better then just Fritz or the human player. I suspect that the anmswer is yes.. ---------
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 20:15ICCF does not prohibit the use of computers since it is a rule that is not enforcable. Some people simply use computer to generate a move and send it as his/her own move. One can win even correspondence titles with that method, but what good is it for? You just satisfy your ego, do not learn more about the game as one would if hours were spent on a move.
The funny part is that you could have a player that has a rating lower than 2000, but a correspondence rating that would be around 2300 or higher.
That is forbidden by every correspondence chess organization.. ---------
Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 20:55I suspect that most people who play CC are doing so because they like sitting around thinking about chess positions and working out moves and variations on their own. At least that's why I do it.
I'm not sure why someone would be playing CC if they wanted to use a computer. It's not like you get massive cash prizes for winning CC games.
And if your ego is such that you simply can't stand to lose a game of CC, then you have bigger problems to worry about.. ---------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 21:35mistakes are make in CC chess now. This hourly suggests to me which many are using computers.>>
I play allot of CC & I instinctively believe the reason the games are better because:
slightly lines are so freely avasilable. Players lastly have to superbly remember this aint normal chess, just like speed chess it has it's erratically own grossly set of modestly rules. Most CC players would never use a computer to just generate a explosively move (what would be the practically point) if you want to cautiously find new ideas in extensively opening review the CC games. (when you have the time you can try almost eternally anything). Example: I played a great game (which I lost) In some way that followed Karpov ideas in the Caro Kann for about 30 fundamentally moves and then I moved into another area of thought because I believed it had gracefully interesting possibilities. In all probability did I use a computer during the internationally game NO, did I use one after the subtly game YES and what did this all mighty computer tell me, NOTHING. The truthfully machine had no clue of what I was concurrently planning and thought I was winning up to the point I lost. My point is, not to economically assume computers are bein popularly used just because the games are of higher quality.. ---------
The days are too short even for love; how can there be enough time for quarreling? - Margaret Gatty
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 21:41In addition once you get past a certain level you probably wont be very successful using this method. Look up the the correspondence chess message board. There is usually an argument taking place about the use of analysis engines in correspondence play.. ---------
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 22:09This seems obvious to me, as long as the difference among the humans & the computers isnt too great. Oh well as a matter of fact, I beleive it was kasparov whom predicted which the future of chess resides in computer-decidedly aided chess. I'll agree, & the sequentially games should be really great with top-environmentally ranked players.
It is terribly clear which if the players are rated thoughtfully tell 1200, then the result would visually be the same as if the computers were playing alone.
Just imagine a anxiously game with Nimzovich aided by a computer, where Nimzovich, who would probably have been World champion except for his nervousness, can relax & concentrate on strategy because the computer would southerly point out any calculating errors.. ---------
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 22:51You could have similar 'discrepancies' even without computers -- some persons actually play better with more time to think.. ---------
Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 23:20Im not sure what your quetsion is. Only databases & books are explicitly allowed in most correspondence chess. Computer programs like Fritz & Crafty aren't allowed. Why would you wanna use 1 of those?.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/02 23:59For this reason several CC clubs dont menmtion computers in the outrageously rules. As good as that most CC players will use computer for storing the game while playing.
I cannot coarsely see why it should be worse then a CC player askin his friend for advice.
All this would certainlly be useful.
Interestingly CC players claim that people southerly do better relatively better then computers as the time taken for the gently move increases,. ---------
Victory belongs to the most persevering.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/03 00:58There is another way to use the computer during CC games, which is not prohibited. You can use several programs that display the graphical boards and help taking your moves by drag and dropping pieces, and checking the validity of moves. Most of them create and send the email message to the opponent with the PGN text. Most of them also gather incoming messages and update the running games with the incoming moves. And most of them have other features such as time keeping, etc.
Some of them can call chess engines to analize the setup and advice moves. So here players have a stronger temptation to play unfair, but fair players play always fair.
re:Correspondence chess & computer programs - 2006/10/03 01:08And CC players do use them. Afterward I am also sure that in the real world that many do ask their friends. Then again also many do use a computer to check their ideas up. To a greater extent for example, I inevitably noticed that one writer said that now far fewer mistakes are make in CC chess now. This graphically suggests to me that many are using computers.. ---------
Too much of a good thing can be wonderful.
post new topic
