The rating list at LSS gives IECG membership numbers for all of the players in the rating list.
Why do I have to be different? Maybe I am different! :-)
>I hope my clock is not running! :-)
your clock wont run until some other people will register and you are paired against him
>The rating list at LSS gives IECG membership numbers for all of the players in the rating list.
that is,and was,to preserve the numbers that people had at IECG when it was absorved by LSS;now you register and you will be given a number like,for example,29729
>Why do I have to be different?
can you explain in what aspect are you different?
How about you?
chess is very good for the brain,but there are other specific training for the brain,that is very good,and from my point of view,better than chess,since it activate different part of the brain,and chess,at least cc,are a lot dereived from engines,at least today
if you have an ipad or an iphone,you can dowload a lot of specific training for brain:''brain magister 1 & 2'' and ''Lumosity'' are the better one
here is the link to Lumositi page,where you can test some of the games if you havent an ipod,ipad or iphone:
I am now playing ten games on your correspondence chess server.
>I am now playing ten games on your correspondence chess server.
yes,that is the amount of games that you can play after the promotion to the next level...if you want one advice,play not more than 10 games,if you havent a powerful machine;i think you will have better games if you dont play more than 10 games
> yes,that is the amount of games that you can play after the promotion to the next level...if you want one advice,play not more than 10 games,if you havent a powerful machine;i think you will have better games if you dont play more than 10 games
Thanks. I do not know whether or not I must complete those games before they would let me play more.
Many years ago, I experienced "correspondence chess burnout" because I was playing too many games, more than fifty.
I still want to do other things, too! Being retired, I have a lot of "chess time," but do not wish to use all of it for playing correspondence chess.
Incidentally, the Alzheimer's patient does not experience anxiety. It is the care-taker that does that. I was primary care-taker for an alzheimer's patient for five years. I did not like it!!!
There is a lot of research going into study of diseases of the brain and we can only hope that some of that research will pay off.
Some people believe in mental games, saying: "If you don't use it you'll lose it!" I am not sure that chess does exercise the entire mind, but it does exercise part of it.
>Many years ago, I experienced "correspondence chess burnout" because I was playing too many games, more than fifty.
yes,i was also at my past so crazy to play that number of games
>Incidentally, the Alzheimer's patient does not experience anxiety
some patients can experience frustration when they perceive that are lossing the memory or his brain functions,and that can go into change of the mood,and also the personality...seach patient curse the disease with his/her own way,even if all the patients has in common losse of memory and degrading their cognitive abilyties
>Some people believe in mental games, saying: "If you don't use it you'll lose it!"
that people are wrong;if you practice mental games,you can retard the evolution of the disease,but not cure it
is the same that a guy with,for example,with ALS,with the exercises he can reduce the severity of the symptoms,and slow down the curse of the disease...the exercise wont cure the disease,and the disease will arrive to a time when it will incapacitate the patient,but always is better later than sooner,dont you think?
Of course, we can all hope for a medical research breakthru.
of course,investigators can try different medicines/combinations to treat or palliate Alzheimer disease,but is my opinion that wont be found a cure,if it can be found,until governments will allow investigation with stem cells
Here is one of my favorite generalizations: You have to play the hand that you are dealt.
There are a lot of other researches which can be called biochemical approaches.
Anyway, hope is a good thing.
>Stem cell research is going on in many countries. It is a shame not in Spain but what can you do?
nothing...but i hope one day here also at Spain will research with stem cells
>You have to play the hand that you are dealt
totally agree;no one can play with other deal
>There are a lot of other researches which can be called biochemical approaches
yes,i know,but to find a cure they need to investigate with stem cells;with biochemical approaches,they wont only be able to reduce the symptoms,or even retard the disease,like with AIDS
yes,hope is always good,and free
> What is really at issue is whether or not modern engines, optimized for winning fast engine vs engine tournaments, are optimal for correspondence chess applications.
I think we need to define "optimal" here. What is the goal here? Because I don't think the goal is having corr players as perfect entities that never do mistakes and have all the games ending in draws.
Remember that if the tool is greatly improved your opponent will use it too.
Sure, engines could have a better strategy and provide much better moves, but that's like inventing the gun and using it in a sword fight, the duels with guns are long over, but fencing is still being practiced and enjoyed. As we agree engines are just tools, I think that their weakness makes for more interesting games and I'm very glad playing good chess isn't as easy as pulling a trigger.
The day an engine is devised that can avoid playing losing moves with very high certainty is the day correspondence chess will be over. We keep playing because we know we'll win the game if we use the tool better than the opponent. If winning is out of the question and the opponent can easily draw even when you play much better moves, then it becomes pointless, as the top corr player and the newbie that knows how to use the new engine would be equally unbeatable.
So, personally, I acknowledge the problem but hope it's not fixed soon.
My personal interest in chess engines is for two things: (1) Post-mortem analyses of my own games and (2) To help me "dig deeper" into annotated grandmaster games which are in my printed books.
It seems to me that an engine which was very good (not necessarily perfect or "optimal") for correspondence chess would also be very good for my applications. [Optimizing means to make "as good as it can get" for a given application.]
This is not to suggest that I am unappreciative of the efforts of the modern chess engine developers. Rybka and Houdini are a great help to me just as they are.
Aside from the above, I am also mildly fascinated by chess engines in general and how they work. Perhaps that is evident from the bulletins I have posted here.
The thing I like about the Rybka Chess Community Forum is that there are many chess engine users here who have found new ways to use the software. Here, we can read about the experiences of others.
If I were to begin the process of designing my own chess software, I would probably also spend a lot of time at the Computer Chess Club bulletin board.
I feel a sense of sadness when I see that, for practical reasons, modern engines cannot incorporate large amounts of knowledge. As noted earlier, doing so would handicap them in fast engine vs engine tournaments.
I would love to see a chess engine, designed for slower chess, which would play "knowledgably." It would answer the academically interesting question: "What are the upper limits of how well computers can be made to 'think'?"
Here is a correspondence chess scenario to think about:
The human correspondence player first analyzes the position, comes up with candidate plans and moves, and studies likely lines (always looking at forcing sequences to the very end) and does some serious deep thinking before ever turning on the engine.
Then, the human uses his engine to see where he made serious errors in his thinking (especially tactical errors). After that, the human "goes back to the drawing board" without the engine and tries to do a better job the second time around. This process could be reiterated for as long as time is available.
This scenario would allow the human to feel really good about his final move because he would know that he had "put a lot of himself" into the analysis.
> It seems to me that an engine which was very good (not necessarily perfect or "optimal") for correspondence chess would also be very good for my applications. [Optimizing means to make "as good as it can get" for a given application.]
Not necessarily, at different levels the best moves to play are different. At corr chess, where engines are available at all times, playing move x may be best, because even with the help of engines the opponent will have a very hard time finding the best defense and the side playing the move will be able to win. However, it turns out black has many, very tricky variations, that are no problem to refute for a corr chess player but they require very deep analysis, not available for the blitz player. So, on blitz, move x is very dangerous as the opponent can play into the tricky lines, as the blitz player doesn't have enough time to analyze as it's required, the other player may turn around the tables and will make move x look like a blunder.
On human chess playing x may be nonsensical if the position is too tactical, as soon as the opponent plays into the tricky position where the main plan no longer works (and the plan that works requires corr controls) the human may be lost, and in positions that were better left avoided.
Now, suppose that in the same position there's move y, that is bad for corr time controls, because the defending side can find after a lot of time and effort a drawing line. The corr chess player will not want to play y move because the opponent has enough time to find the defense (and there's move x that wins.)
However, on blitz there's no time for the defending player to find this defense, so for the blitz player y move is clearly better as it avoids the tricky positions, and then the chances to win are very likely.
For human chess, the player has just to learn the patterns that lead to victory, and be confident that the opponent has no chance to find a defense (though, in this scenario the attacking played doesn't know about the defense either.) Here also move y is better than move x.
This is the reason that there are opening books made for correspondence analysis, OTB analysis, for making the engines play at long time controls and for blitz (usually 3 minute each side time control). You don't use the corr book for blitz games, because the engine may be left into a position where it has great advantage but where it doesn't have time to find the winning lines, the time it has makes it play blunders, and ends losing because this position was only superior if you have enough time to analyze your moves.
The best blitz books take advantage of this and may go into positions where one side needs to struggle to find what to play, and this will create great performance because your side will deteriorate its position with each move. But those same moves may have no value for the corr chess player, that may even find the struggling side is actually winning, once the optimal moves are found.
If what you suggest was done, and engines were put knowledge or a better search strategy into them so that they would behave like corr chess on blitz, in the above scenario it'll all do is show a big advantage to move x (because it wins), and a 0.00 score to move y (because there's a defense that holds) even though in your OTB games you'd be better avoiding move x (because the position is too tricky and without help from the engine you may end up losing) and playing y instead (because your opponents don't have a way to find a defense against it without engines.)
Actually, I've hold that for postmortem analysis of games top elo engines aren't necessary, you'd rather want to find an engine that already likes your playing style and your moves, and improves of them, otherwise you risk being alienated and switching to an engine-like playing style that leads you to positions where you're uncomfortable (that the engine would win, but it'd also win from moves it dislikes and you're comfortable with, anyway.)
>This scenario would allow the human to feel really good about his final move because he would know that he had "put a lot of himself" into the analysis.
Unfortunately, chess is not a game that may reward too much effort, I've actually found the best move in some positions, but then thought, what if there's a better one? And put a lot of effort into finding an alternative, until finally, I found one that looked better and played it. Several moves later I found that my original move, that took much less effort to find, was better. The thing is that after you find the best move but don't recognize it as best, all further analysis only has the potential to weaken you.
In you interesting hybrid proposal for corr chess, I can very well see the human using too much time in irrelevant variations because it was missing a single tactical move from the engine, and these starting from scratch scenarios slowing him so much that he'd not have time properly to analyze the move that the opponent is going to play, because the opponent used a better analysis method from the start.
>> Actually, I've hold that for postmortem analysis of games top elo engines aren't necessary, you'd rather want to find an engine that already likes your playing style and your moves, and improves of them, otherwise you risk being alienated and switching to an engine-like playing style that leads you to positions where you're uncomfortable (that the engine would win, but it'd also win from moves it dislikes and you're comfortable with, anyway.)
The first step in my post-mortem analysis of my games (not correspondence) is to use "Blunder Check" to identify blunders, bad moves, and weak moves. As you say, it does not take the strongest engine to do that, but I have the strongest engine, so why not use it?
Recently, I have been giving Houdini 40 seconds per move for Blunder Check and that seems to be more than enough time for the purpose on my new fast computer. I ask for an alternative line for all moves 0.1 pawns equivalent difference between assessed strength of the move played versus the strength of the move Houdini recommends as the alternative. This allows me to identify weak moves as well as bad moves and blunders.
Aftrer Blunder Check, I go through my games by giving them the initial annotations of "??" for blunders, "?" for bad moves, and "?!" for weak moves. This helps me later during post-mortem analysis because I study my blunders first, study the bad moves next, and then, if there is time, look at my weak moves. Note that I look at the opponent's errors only to the extent that doing so would help me to understand my own mistakes.
In the final preliminary step, I identify positions I wish to study and mark them with "LOOK AT THIS POSITION." These are the positions where I made my mistakes, being the position after the opponent's last move.
The main part of the post-mortem analysis begins only after the above steps are done. Engines help me during the rest of the post-mortem analysis because I ask questions like "what about this move?"
> In you interesting hybrid proposal for corr chess, I can very well see the human using too much time in irrelevant variations because it was missing a single tactical move from the engine, and these starting from scratch scenarios slowing him so much that he'd not have time properly to analyze the move that the opponent is going to play, because the opponent used a better analysis method from the start.
Yes, human post-mortem analysis is slow. However, it is very rewarding! The chess engine behaves like a mentor. After you do a poor job of analysis, the chess engine then reaches out and whacks your fingers with a ruler! You can learn quickly that way.
> As you say, it does not take the strongest engine to do that, but I have the strongest engine, so why not use it?
Because it's going to point out moves as bad that aren't so against your human opponents, and suggest better moves that aren't actually better because they may be easier to defend by human opponent or they're more difficult to play for you. If engine says a move is 0.25 worse than another, it may mean nothing on OTB chess, maybe the "inferior" move would give you better results.
Actual blunders can be found by any engine, but engine style will have an effect on analysis, and just because in the rating list it has the highest performance against other engines, it doesn't mean its style is suitable for your needs.
>Recently, I have been giving Houdini 40 seconds per move for Blunder Check and that seems to be more than enough time for the purpose on my new fast computer.
For most positions? For most games? There are still going to be positions where Houdini suggests crappy moves in 40 seconds. Also, it may not be understanding your brilliant moves and saying they were bad. When I used Houdini in correspondence games, it would suggest poor moves or even losing moves and it required another engine to monitor them and show why they were wrong to Houdini. Houdini in general is also not good for analysis because of flat scoring (seeing little difference in very distinct variations) which means its move choices are more likely to be random (it could have picked some other move.)
>This helps me later during post-mortem analysis because I study my blunders first, study the bad moves next, and then, if there is time, look at my weak moves.
And this will be fundamentally flawed if really weak moves are missed and waste time if it tags good moves as weak.
>Engines help me during the rest of the post-mortem analysis because I ask questions like "what about this move?"
Yes, when I analyze my games postmortem I skip directly to this, "blunder checking" seems to me a waste of time, as the best improvements of play are usually found in moves that the engine likes, but are not optimal, and those will not be noticed by blunder check. Just because you played the move the engine would play doesn't mean the move is best.
>the chess engine then reaches out and whacks your fingers with a ruler! You can learn quickly that way.
This seems to be accurate for tactics, easily best moves missed by humans in where learning the patters will make you improve. However, in the rest of positions the best moves will be a matter of taste and it's better to find an engine that understands your plan instead of one that dislikes it and just shows refutations of it, even if it's the best plan but the engine doesn't see it.
Postmortem analysis should be about "what could I have done to improve my plan in this game?" not "what plan should I have used for this game?" as the plans suggested by engines that work better against other engines may just be poor for human chess.
> Yes, when I analyze my games postmortem I skip directly to this, "blunder checking" seems to me a waste of time, as the best improvements of play are usually found in moves that the engine likes, but are not optimal, and those will not be noticed by blunder check. Just because you played the move the engine would play doesn't mean the move is best.
I agree! I only "blunder check" my blitz games! (which I limit myself to two a day!
Any game that is G/30 or longer I go over it myself and then use the engine(s) in infinite analysis to really dig into the game.
My use of Blunder Check has been only for blitz.
I do find Blunder Check to be a convenience but would not waste my time with it for correspondence games.
> Right now, I only play blitz (15 0 or slower) and correspondence.
Blitz is usually defined as the exact opposite of that.
I wait for a seek and then if it is slow enough to suit me, I respond. For now, I will play anybody that issues a seek.
If I can ever get to where I do not make so many serious errors again, I will go back to playing rated games and may also go back to Internet Chess Club where I used to play. For now, I am trying to get back to where I was before I quit.
I did not play for almost four years because I was trying to get "yet another" college degree. I have addressed this is a previous bulletin.
For now, I am preoccupied with my server correspondence games.
Thanks for the info, anyway.
Slower than 15 - 0 is rapid or classical or ...
> If engine says a move is 0.25 worse than another, it may mean nothing on OTB chess, maybe the "inferior" move would give you better results.
I totally agree. That is one reason that I mark such moves with a "?!" move. As I noted earlier, my other use of chess engines is for analysis of GM games printed in books. What I have found is that GMs seem to voluntarily choose moves which a chess engine might evaluate as being "inferior" by as much as a half of a pawn equivalent. One game recently caught my eye. At no point in that game did either side play a move that the engine said was worse than 0.5 pawn. Those games are not blitz, however. Even GMs make bad moves in Blitz. I put a "?!" mark on moves the engine says are no worse than 0.5 pawns equivalent, and do not consider them to be weak moves until I have thoroughly studied the position. Incidentally, moves which the engine says are 0.5 to 2.0 pawns equivalent worse than the move the engine prefers are the ones I mark with "?" and those worse than 2.0 pawns get a "??" mark.
When I look at the position which had been flagged by the engine during Blunder Check analysis as a blunder, bad move, or "weak" move, I often discover that the initial assessment is incorrect. If so, I change the annotation symbol accordingly.
I fear that I may have misled you. Post-mortem analysis does not begin for me until after I have completed what I call the "preliminaries." I have said little about what happens during my "real" post-mortem analysis.
Let me explain:
In the first place, my only purpose for doing post-mortem analyses of blitz games is to find out what my mental processes were so that I can identify and correct mental process errors. That is why I do the post-mortem analysis as soon after the game as possible, so that I will have a better chance of remembering what I was thinking.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am from the "old school" that did not have chess computers to aid in the analysis. Old habits die hard! I still "am in charge of" the analysis. I use the chess engine primarily to check my tactics and to see if I missed anything obvious. Sometimes the engine will suggest a move that I had not considered and when this happens I study that move to see what sort of plan that move might fit into and then consider whether or not that plan might be better than or an alternative to the others I had been thinking of. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I do a lot of "what if" analysis using the engine. I come up with the "what if" moves out of my head and not from the engine.
I am not sure that the choice of engine is all that significant for the way I am using the engine. I can be convinced otherwise. My way is not the only way. ((Note: That was another of my favorite "general principles."))
> I am not sure that the choice of engine is all that significant for the way I am using the engine.
It does, at the point where the engine suggests a move you didn't consider, and after analyzing the plans of it, it turns out it's a poor one. This is wasted time, you could have used a different engine that didn't suggest this poor move, and that maybe suggested a move you didn't consider that wipes away the alternatives, which the engine you used before was missing.
The devil is on the details.
> It does, at the point where the engine suggests a move you didn't consider, and after analyzing the plans of it, it turns out it's a poor one. This is wasted time, you could have used a different engine that didn't suggest this poor move, and that maybe suggested a move you didn't consider that wipes away the alternatives, which the engine you used before was missing.
I guess I have not communicated properly. Sorry about that.
I take full responsibility for the moves I choose to consider. If an engine suggests something, I try to give it a reasonable amount of my time but in the final analysis I and I alone am responsible for the moves I play.
Before long, I may (or may not) start asking several different engines what they think, too. Nevertheless, I will never blame a chess engine nor it's programmer for leading me astray. I and I alone am responsible for the choices I make.
It is true that it takes time to look at yet another move. If I am in time trouble I may ignore the chess engine entirely except, maybe, to check my tactics.
>If an engine suggests something, I try to give it a reasonable amount of my time
And the time becomes too much when the engine suggests a poor move and you go into it unnecessarily. It saves time to analyze with an engine that already suggests moves similar to what you play, because the times it "suggests something" will be more useful and will be less.
Maybe Houdini is already the optimal engine for this, but I find it very unlikely.
>I and I alone am responsible for the moves I play.
Of course, after all, the engine is off when you make your move. We're talking about OTB postmortem analysis, all the moves that you play will be yours.
>Before long, I may (or may not) start asking several different engines what they think, too.
For postmortem you'll only need one, otherwise it'll be too redundant and not worth it. But I think the time used looking for an engine that fits your analysis style will be much less than the time you'll waste checking dumb engine suggestions in the future.
>If I am in time trouble I may ignore the chess engine entirely except, maybe, to check my tactics.
You'll never be in time trouble for postmortem analysis, the game is over already.
> We're talking about OTB postmortem analysis
I guess I was guilty of thinking about too many things at one time. Maybe it's old age coming on. :-)
I had started thinking about correspondence chess using a chess engine.
> We're talking about OTB postmortem analysis, all the moves that you play will be yours.
The last time I played an OTB tournament game was in the mid-90s. Since then, until a few days ago, the only games I've played have been 15 0 or slower on a chess server. Incidentally, if not "blitz," then what shall we call these games?
There is a local chess club but they are preoccupied with playing OTB rated games and I just don't have the stanima to do that. I get tired too easily. Besides, I have to drive more than a half hour just to get to their meeting place.
I analyzed my OTB games a long time ago and am no longer doing that. For me, as of today, my analysis is: (1) During correspondence games, (2) Study of GM games in printed books, (3) Post-mortem analyses of my 15 0 or slower server games, and (4) expansion of my opening repertoires.
Now that there are a number of good chess engines available, I would use them for post-mortem analysis of OTB games if I were to play any more of them.
Incidentally, I wonder how many people on this forum are actively engaged in OTB tournaments (without chess engines).
> I've played have been 15 0 or slower on a chess server. Incidentally, if not "blitz," then what shall we call these games?
On the servers I've been, they'd be called "Standard or slower" time controls. More precise ranges seem to be "Quick or Rapid" if they're slower than 15 0 but faster than 60 0. There's a void there until reaching Short Classical time controls which could be 90 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, though, by then you'd better specify the time control.
Blitz would be anything faster than 15 0, though games are never played that close to that, and I've heard time controls like 10 0 referred to as "slow blitz". Blitz is usually 3 0 or 5 0.
>I get tired too easily.
Why do you get more tired on rapid games? Straining in the rated games may actually hurt your performance as you may play better if you are relaxed and enjoying. Chess is just a game and while studying it can be taken seriously I think it should be played for fun, rated and non-rated games alike.
>(3) Post-mortem analyses of my 15 0 or slower server games
I consider them the same as OTB games. That the pieces appear on the screen virtually instead of in a real board and that you drag a mouse around to play instead of touching pieces with your fingers, and even that the opponent is not in the same room, doesn't change the game.
>Incidentally, I wonder how many people on this forum are actively engaged in OTB tournaments
Many tournaments are played online, and actually, all the discussions I've made in this thread for OTB games have referred to server games, though I still see no reason to differentiate them.
> Why do you get more tired on rapid games?
I must have mis-spoke. I do not get tired on rapid games (10 0 to maybe 30 0) because they end soon, and I do not have to play another game if I do not feel like doing so.
What I meant to say is that I get tired after maybe the 4th or fifth round of a 40 in 2 hours and 15 per half thereafter in a eyeball-to-eyeball tournament played with a physical chess board and pieces and a physical chess clock. There is no server. A typical game may last five hours. Then, another game begins right away and you are there for another five hours. In some cases, three five hour games are played in a single day. These are the tournaments in which I get too tired.
> More precise ranges seem to be "Quick or Rapid" if they're slower than 15 0 but faster than 60 0.
I will start calling them "Rapid."
> Many tournaments are played online, and actually, all the discussions I've made in this thread for OTB games have referred to server games, though I still see no reason to differentiate them.
So, do most of these server games allow "centaur" chess, i.e. using a chess engine during the game?
> So, do most of these server games allow "centaur" chess, i.e. using a chess engine during the game?
No, they are identical to OTB games without engine assistance, though usually they are played on much faster time controls. After years I don't ever recall seeing a single server tournament with 5 hours/game time controls.
Time controls have gradually become faster over the years. Maybe I have not been the only one who found the slower games to be too much of an ordeal.
Look, however, at the time controls of the high-category tournaments such as Linaires. Also, look at the time controls used in the World Championship matches.
Times are changing!
But . . . are they changing for the better?
> are they changing for the better?
No, I recall agreeing to Magnus Carlsen's protests against FIDE.
Good God man, that's REAL chess...mano y mano...some of us still have the balls to do this. Actually, that's all I play save for a little G/1 to G/3...even G/5 on ICC. Computer aided chess is...well, like swimming with a jet strapped to your back...kinda helps to have the more powerful jet or at least be able to maneuver it better than the other guy. But...it's not exactly 'swimming', is it? Anyway, I'll be in the minority on this on this site.
there are, of course, the tournaments for the top GMs but they earn money from chess so they have to sweat.
My fear was that everybody else did, indeed, have a jet strapped on their back. :-)
Incidentally, do you do post-mortem analysis of your "REAL chess" games and do you do that the macho way too, or do you use a chess engine(s)?
After a tournament I do this:
The following day, I record the game in Chessbase with my thoughts as they were during the game: what I was thinking, what I might have calculated, the time spent on each move (it's just a running time after each move, but you can see how much time was used on each move by subtraction), when I was 'out of book' as it were....really, about anything I can think of.
Then at some future point - and that could be a couple of days to a week or more, I go back to the game and check for where the game really deviated from 'theory'. I then run an engine over it to see where there might be some tactical improvements or something otherwise that I or my opponent may have missed. I then incorporate some of that into my commentary, noting what was from the engine (since years from now I might not remember). I then give a little summary of the game - any takeaway or lessons learned if you will. That could be anything from 'I need to revisit then to trade down into a R + B vs R + B (opposite) endgames, to time mismanagment to, to maybe something psychological I notice in the opponent.
Ideally, I should probably make that a 3 step process - adding a week or so after the initial entry, a time to study the game - rethinking my play with a more critical eye...and only after that using the engine. That I am sure would be more beneficial.
After 58 years of chess, including countless "real" chess tournaments I have played in, I must say that your approach to post-mortem analysis sounds very much like what I have done throughout the years.
"Somewhere along the way" software seems to have made it's appearance and it has had an impact on the way we live.
Use of chess engines during post-mortem analysis is a very new development and it is both a good thing and a bad thing. The bad aspect is that it can make a chess player be lazy.
In your wildest dreams, when you were still a kid, did you ever dream of playing in a correspondence chess tournament where use of chess engines was considered the norm rather than the exception?
This is a "brave new world."
Today's teenagers will grow up thinking that there never was a time when anything at all was done without the help of computers. Before you know it, even sex will require the use of a computer! :-)
Yes, use of an engine can and does make players lazy. That is why I only use it AFTER I've put in a little objective mental muscle in analyzing my games. Like most tools, the value is in how you use it.
When I win a chess game my natural tendency is to engage in a self-agrandization fantasy. I think "I am really good at this game!"
This can happen in post-mortem analysis too. I never know for sure whether or not I am seeing only what I want to see.
The chess engine can help a person who has a problem with reality.
When I do my "preliminaries" as I explained in an earlier bulletin, I am steered back to reality by the Blunder-check engine. It forces me to see my blunders, bad moves and potentially weak moves.
True, I still have to rely upon my own mental abilities to do the main part of the post-mortem analyses but the engine lets me know "up front" when I have messed up so that tends to keep my self-delusions in check.
Much the same happens when I check my post-mortem analyses with an engine'
Recall that Lasker once said something like "The hypocrite (or whatever) does not survive long on the chessboard."
Much the same happens when one's tactics are checked by an engine. Self-delusions evaporate in the face of hard evidence.
> Computer aided chess is...well, like swimming with a jet strapped to your back..
No, it's like racing with a car instead of with your feet. If you're a marathon runner it could well be understood if you don't like car racing, and even if you critique the weak legs of the car racers, or how you could beat them easily on a marathon, but these are very different things and require very different skills.
Oh...we do always seem to disagree about things, don't we, Uly?
Look, you have your analogies...I have mine. I see no difference.
The real takeway from my analogy is that you are no longer in a swimming race, you are in a race where the jet propels you thru the water and all you do is 'guide it' and the rpms the jet can turn is what is in all likelyhood to matter most. It's the same way with auto racing...except even then there are more non-human variables at play: the size of the engine, the weight of it, the difference in the tires and the suspension, etc....well, at least their is some physical ability needed, although with power steering, not so much anymore.
So someone can guide a piece of hardware...whoop-tee-doo! It's not in the same ballpark when compared to beating someone in a game of one on one chess where the human is responsible for everything that goes on.
It becomes a video game if you will. A kid can use his Xbox to drive the Datona 500...but it's all an illusion. All he has done is maneuver a bunch of 1's and 0's in some hardware to get a virtual victory against...someone else doing the same. Maybe those illusions are what keeps getting our kids fatter and less healthy as they pursue their 'dreams'.
> It's not in the same ballpark when compared to beating someone in a game of one on one chess where the human is responsible for everything that goes on.
Indeed, the quality of play when playing with engines is incredibly superior.
> It becomes a video game if you will.
Victories with help of engines are as valid as victories without them. And more meaningful, the games you win OTB are just because your opponent made a very dumb move and missed something you didn't, but even then, you may miss it also and both play a blunder after another. Those kind of victories aren't more real.
If you continue with the jet analogy, then I'll say human chess is like swimming with your feet tied and an arm tied to your back, it loses whoever swims worse.
> Victories with help of engines are as valid as victories without them. And more meaningful, the games you win OTB are just because your opponent made a very dumb move and missed something you didn't, but even then, you may miss it also and both play a blunder after another.
I think that you should stick with your original analogy that they are very different things and that they mean different things to different people. A victory with the help of engines is more meaningful for you. A victory OTB is more meaningful for me.
Neither is wrong or right, just different things.
"Victories with help of engines are as valid as victories without them. And more meaningful, the games you win OTB are just because your opponent made a very dumb move and missed something you didn't, but even then, you may miss it also and both play a blunder after another. Those kind of victories aren't more real."
Proof positive you are a freak about this.
"more meaningful"??? That's like going to a clothing store and shrugging at this one and saying 'not sure about that one' or 'maybe I could wear that' and then finally, 'yeh, I might look good in blue'...as your parents plunk down THEIR hard earned cash at the cash register...and YOU somehow think YOU just bought a new suit! Seriously, I am now more sure than ever that you do not understand the word 'meaningful'.
Most races are NOT won because someone just "tripped and fell to the ground"...hell, people can stumble in Marathons (since you referenced Marathons earlier) and yet get up and can still win (it's a LONG race...) and to even suggest that all OTB games are won because of "Oops! Your opponent didn't see that!" moments...not only shows your lack of chess education, it shows you have no appreciation for what it takes to play a good game of chess...or apparently even appreciate the end product of such a contest, as these things are out of the reach of your 'engine guiding' capabablities.
I do hope you continue to enjoy whatever suits you might be able to steer your parents into buying for you. Here is hoping though that one day you may feel the worth and self-satisfaction that comes with the sweat equity found in spending your very own hard earned cash to buy one for yourself someday. You might look good in it.
For the corr chess player, it takes much more effort to play than for the OTB player, as whatever thinking process the OTB player has on a given position to choose what move to play, only gets the corr chess player a candidate move, with most of the work still to be done.
We're talking about 48 hours to move, the first 5 could be used to play an entire game of the level of the OTB game, not just one move, and you still have 43 hours. What you do with the rest of your time is critical and the difference between your success or failure.
Nothing stops you from analyzing the corr chess position as if you were playing the OTB game, but it'll only take you a few minutes until you'd have made the move on the board, or until you're stuck analyzing an irrelevant variations where both sides have made a blunder. If someone gets rid of his OTB thinking process to follow the engine's moves, then that's his problem, and he shouldn't assume everyone else failed at analyzing correspondence chess like he did.
The reason OTB and Corr chess is so different is that all the OTB effort of the human is just a fraction of the corr chess effort, which is obvious given the huge difference in time that the players get to decide on a move.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill