(Nice to see you back again, hope everything is fine!)
Are you guys just copying the computer or are you actually trying to make a difference?
Even with normal time controls (10 moves/50 days) , currently it is very difficult to find original ideas that the computers do not understand/approve. With such a short time control, I doubt that you can find/ add something that the computer does not understand.
This seems like a way to find out who has a better chess computer. (with more time, there is more chance for a human input with a controversial decision that the computer does not approve)
Anyway, you guys like this I guess, good luck!
> What is the point of this kind of correspondence chess?
> Are you guys just copying the computer or are you actually trying to make a difference?
> Even with normal time controls (10 moves/50 days) , currently it is very difficult to find original ideas that the computers do not understand/approve. With such a short time control, I doubt that you can find/ add something that > > the computer does not understand.
> This seems like a way to find out who has a better chess computer. (with more time, there is more chance for a human input with a controversial decision that the computer does not approve)
> Anyway, you guys like this I guess, good luck!
Boy did you ever hit the nail on the head! This is exactly the reasons I am getting out of CC all together. In fact CC chess is all but dead in the old sense.
Full of new ideas cracking game's top quality play.
You have no idea how to play this time control so you dismiss it i play all types of chess and am pretty good at it and these time controls are fun.
The only reason am not playing in 2015 is my own lack of time.
If you don't have the balls to give it a go then don't come on here and dis it.
Put up or Shut Up
Some of them enter the event, some do not. Those that enter, usually quit pretty quickly because they realise that their overblown statements were false and that the event is much harder than they expected.
There are some facts about this event that are undisputed:
1) Those that have played in the event since its inception in 2011 have seen their general correspondence chess rating improve greatly on other sites. Some of them are even leading contenders on those other sites. When they were not before.
2) Review after review from independent observers has rated this event as one of the strongest events of its type that exists.
3) The time control is plenty of time for two games per round. Those that are trying to balance another 50 games on other sites, that is your problem. This event expects you to be concentrating on this event only, nothing else in terms of chess purposes.
I make no claims that this does not mean that some of the same results would translate to games played under conditions of 10 moves in 40 days, repeating, but one characteristic we have noted on here is that it does seem that all players do under those time controls is load themselves up with many more games, so it is sometimes questionable how much more time they are actually taking per game, on each game.
I offer this challenge each year. If you truly believe this event is all about just making engine moves and that your way is better, or the players are rather weak. Comply with the entry conditions and enter yourself. As organiser I will vet your entry rather closely based on the behaviour of previous entries who have entered under this pattern, which is they withdraw, but the open challenge is there.
In my opinion, human still makes a huge difference, and unassisted computers are much weaker than human+ computer team. I expect a surprisingly strong result for human+ computer team (maybe more than 60%)
I propose 2 human players (maybe GM Arno Nickel and me, if he is interested, as he is one of the best players in the world for this kind of chess../ or I can play alone) against 5-6 strong computers with 1 engine.
Round robin tournament with 2 games against each opponent. 50 days/10 move time control. Engine moves can not be manipulated by the computer operator and thinking time should be fixed (1-5 days /move, but not more (as critical positions if computer is let to think more, there is human intervention. fixed 5 days/move is fine, but it it is forced move, it can be less, but not more. No manipulation by the operator, plays the number one listed move every time, only 1 engine (can be as many threads as possible and a very strong computer)
What I saw in the WC Final games that in 6-7 games that I would win against computer programs, humans deviated and chose the best move, against the advice of computers. I think that given enough time, there is still a lot of influence of humans.
I know that some of you guys have excellent computers (much better than mine, which are at least 2 years old), but I believe that given enough time, it is not enough to get an equal result against human+ computer combination.
If you guys are interested, and 5-6 people can devote their strong computer for this kind of experiment (6-12 months) , I am ready to play. The result may be very surprising.
GM Tansel Turgut
Implicit in your last two posts is the assumption that the moves played in the WBCCC games are purely unassisted engine moves. Your further criticism builds on this assumption.
Your assumption is however incorrect. It takes a certain skill set to combine engine and human input within a tight time constraint.
I am curious whether you have mastered this skill set. This is a different set of skills than that needed for ICCF time controls.
Why dont you show us your skills, we are keen to learn.
Please enter the next WBCCC swiss event, as you say, you have 12 months available...
> Your assumption is however incorrect. It takes a certain skill set to combine engine and human input within a tight time constraint.
Sometimes following the recommended engine path, or following one engine path for a series of moves over another is a very underrated skill that does not get a lot of appreciation at all. As this kibitzer has just commented, all this is is just players banging out engine move after engine move and the best engine or computer wins.
But those of us who have played many of these events know this is not generally true, but sometimes, following the path of the engine move, or your choice of engine, and not interfering, is the right choice. That is a skill in itself.
To see if this guy is willing to put up or shut up, and it looks already like it is shut up, I will wonder if Paul will offer his $US250 shut up and go away or enter the tournament bribe offer again
I want this new guy in the round robin event, I do not want to him in the swiss event. He is making comments about the length of the time control and needing more time, so his comments are suited to putting his money where his fingers are and entering the double round robin event.
1) your [real classic! ] threads like "Different engines in different openings???", What is the best program at slow (cc) time controls? or "Best Books" show that you have a pretty limited knowledge about computer-chess, even so low that your conclusions regarding computer-assisted play at faster time-controls than you're used to at ICCF yourself isn't actually based on knowledge. I mean, you don't know about the strengths of certain engines in certain phases of the game, but on the other side claim that everyone in WBCCC makes only engine-moves (of which engine?) only?!
2) As was already pointed out, neither WBCCC or even must faster time-control species of computer-assisted chess like InfinityChess-Freestyle tournaments (where corr-GM Arno Nickel is a leading organizer & practitioner btw.!) are "engine-only play" - indeed there may be way more human intuition&input than you may find in all that ICCF-snail-races, so what actually do you want to prove with your "scientific experiment"* (which btw. much better suits the spacebar-experiment in another part of this forum)? [* = a "scientific experiment" with a panel-size of your proposed "[2*] 5-6 strong computers" proves not too much btw., given your vitae and that you should have already heard about scientific standards of testing while your medical education, you should know about this ).
3) You will find a lot more patzers over at ICCF (some even play without engines till today!, yet those i obviously call "traditionalists" ) than you will find in WBCCC... so if you want to prove something, take up the challenge!
> (Scott) Do you think it would be possible to put out some feelers to see if there would be enough interest for a third event? Time control 10 days for each player with a one hour increment, swiss system with the # of rounds to be determined from the amount of players. It could be called the LCCC. (lightning corr. chess ch.) This event I would sign up for. It would be for players who have the time and interest of course. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but my psychological make-up is such that I simply cannot play the long controls. If nobody is interested then nothing ventured, nothing gained. But I can't help thinking there must be more than just one person on the planet that thinks in a similar way.
I really do hate when people do this. We are venturing from one event to two and then others come in and decide they want to complicate matters further by trying to add further events. All you end up getting is nothing for every event. It has taken up four years to get to this point. We are at a point where we have no prize money, no clear main event, attempting to run a second event, and no guarantee that the first event has enough entries to start (that is the reality) and now at least one person is talking about the possibility of a third event.
This is termed as- confusing the message. Instead of having one simple message and one simple event for people to enter. People start discussing the ideas of multiple events and it goes off it many different tangents. Eventually everyone gets confused and no one enters. And then everyone sits around and wonders why no one entered.
Yes this does piss me off no end.
> Yes this does piss me off no end.
Wow, I never expected this kind of response, Especially since what I offered would take very little effort. Just remember there are other sites where you are just another peon like the rest of us.
Same goes for Mr. Dickhead and others that have pissed me off! Remember that old saying, "paybacks are a bitch!"
1: chat thread topic does imply a general forum as there are other threads for entries, rules, etc. implying this is a thread for whatever else.
2: i'm so relaxed right now. whee.
3: already easy for forum users to find their way to enter. IDK other corr forums, if they exist or corr players have interest in the time control. it is a mystery to me why these shorter controls are so rarely tried other than on the chessplanet server. so far as i know ICCF does not have non-increment controls.
4: was going to say to scott sure i would be happy to play a quick match with 10 day/game + 1 hour, i could keep pace. although i don't know anywhere it's done obviously it's possible maybe using chessplanet resources.
Usually they end within 30-45 days. I've played more than 10 of those.
> Maybe you need to get some of your Lss friends to enter here
And that was meant to be one of the main purposes of this event when it first started. To provide a server so players from different sites could compete against each other.
Good luck people should be advertising this tour to create interest seems few do.
> Two events may dilute the number's.
I agree, but there was quite a lot of commentary and comments saying that the time control was too quick for some and something slower would be more appealing to them. Hence the second event. So it could attract some new players who might be attracted to slightly slower format and become familiar with our set up.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill