I'll play for a win as black (even though I know I can't get it), so give me your best shoot!
PS: it shouldn't come as a surprise that we never played, I'm not a correspondence player and only recently (less than a year) did I start to play because Freestyle is dead.
>As I understand it, I now have 44 hours, and change, to play, correct?
Until first strike, yeah. About 6 days until flag falls.
>I'm not a correspondence player and only recently (less than a year) did I start to play because Freestyle is dead.
That's surprising, I always thought correspondence games would die first. I even assumed I wouldn't be able to win any more games from 2018 onwards, some people at corr chess seem to be playing at lower level than unassisted Stockfish at Depth 32...
Do I have it correct that Freestyle died because engines are now good enough that they play better without human assistance?
PS: is it me or did we just have one of those "User admin already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections"? I haven't been able to login for hours.
>It died because there're no more tournaments.
And why did people stop making tournaments? Looks like the big one was in 2014, at least, there's a lot of Google results about it. And then, nothing. Poof.
> PS: is it me or did we just have one of those "User admin already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections"? I haven't been able to login for hours.
Yes, we did.
However, I wrote my message and sent it while it was offline. From what I can tell, despite the errors (I also got some wrong Gateway thing) if you send a message while it is down, the message is received and posted on the forum, so when it comes back the message comes back with it.
My theory is that if I keep a window open to send my moves to this game, even if the forum is inaccessible, it'll be received and posted on time.
It's been a tradition at Infinity Chess, not to advertise their big Freestyle tournaments in advance. So you never know when another one will be around the corner, but ever since they go their server to be stable enough (over seven years now), this has been clearly the longest hiatus. Why you ask? I'd be surprised if anyone could get a straight answer to that. It always been dependant on the whims of "the sponsors" whoever they are.
> My theory is that if I keep a window open to send my moves to this game, even if the forum is inaccessible, it'll be received and posted on time.
Wouldn't that be cheating? Playing a move your opponent can't see?
> It's been a tradition at Infinity Chess, not to advertise their big Freestyle tournaments in advance. So you never know when another one will be around the corner, but ever since they go their server to be stable enough (over seven years now), this has been clearly the longest hiatus.
Weird that they did it like that... also, I think their server is very stable now. What is the most unstable thing I've seen is their GUI, I can't even use 4 cores of my engine because if the GUI decides to use 100% of a core my endine will perform really badly. I see a new problem every week on their tourneys (yesterday it was that after you offer draw, you see that your opponent's time runs low, and loses on time, only for IC to reveal that it was YOU who lost on time, the opponent accepted draw in their gui, and your gui never responded so the server assumed you lost; at least I was on the other end and won 19 free rating points), usually related to IC GUI hanging, or it deciding that it'll not play a move from engine unless you kill it from Task Manager and reload (which is the official solution to the problem!)
I even wonder if the GUI problems are the reason people don't stick around, because there's a point one gets fed up and quits. People are expected to babysit the GUI for problems where other GUIs would be able to play a whole tournament without requiring 100% attention. It's the worst GUI I've used ever and I'm including all GUIs, period, maybe their Freestyle tournaments would have been more successful if they ditched it and programmed something from scratch.
>Why you ask?
Because I was convinced Advanced Chess (how it was called originally) was going to be the future of chess. People like winning, but 99% of people have no hopes of succeding in chess, not even to reach 2000 rating. With help from engines, anybody can learn how to set them up and how to interact with them and improve their moves, and can improve their books offline so that the opening is played at corr time control levels.
It's surpising to know it's dead and some activity that people gathered to play for a bit at some point in the past, but failed. Again, I expected Corr chess to die because it'd be easy for everyone to draw against anything, and Freestyle would pick it up because that's not a problem with faster time controls, but reality isn't matching my expectations at all.
>Wouldn't that be cheating? Playing a move your opponent can't see?
Ah, good point. The idea was to avoid getting a strike, but no matter if it's posted or not, it's clear it's necessary to post it on your forum as well so it can be seen.
> With help from engines, anybody can learn how to set them up and how to interact with them and improve their moves
Can they? Where?
> I expected Corr chess to die because it'd be easy for everyone to draw against anything, and Freestyle would pick it up because that's not a problem with faster time controls
Both are dead in terms of money prizes. In fact, correspondence chess never offered any real money, maybe that's why the average Freestyle player is more apt at achieving draws, than the equivalent corr player, no matter how much time those have.
>Believe me, ten years ago, their server was so unstable, that one of their first tournaments had to be finished by playing the final and decisive game at PlayChess! It was funny
>Can they? Where?
They could, in theory, back then. Was Freestyle chess properly promoted? You can't blame the sponsors because someone has to look for sponsors, it may have died because nobody cared much about it dying.
>Both are dead in terms of money prizes.
Yeah, but thousands of corr chess games are being played at ICCF, the LSS and FICGS, and the internet is full of sites where people play corr chess without engine assistance (or it's cheating). Nobody is winning money prizes with it, but it's very much alive and doing well (the ICCF even has it backwards, charging people to play in their tourneys and they're willing to pay! Losing money in the process )
If FIDE and the USCF ceased to exist and nobody played money prize tournaments anymore, but people still played chess as much as they do today, "for fun", I'd not consider chess "dead".
By comparison, nobody is playing Freestyle anywhere, so I'll only assume it's because it's not a fun activity to engage in (I play regular chess on a regular basis because it's fun, not expecting to improve or win any money, if people that could play freestyle chess against one another are choosing to do something else, it must because it's pointless.)
Only two things will motivate the best in any field: money and fame. Correspondence chess still holds some of the latter, Freestyle has none at present. And without the best players engaged, how much people do you expect to take an interest?
> it's clear it's necessary to post it on your forum as well so it can be seen
I meant that posting from an open window, when the forum is down, isn't advisable. In general, posting here should suffice. If the forum is down, there's always the e-mail option, to check if a move has been made, in which case, the backup forum would kick in. And if you're going to post a move and it's down, then go for the backup directly.
> They could, in theory, back then.
You're of the opinion that playing against someone better allows you to grasp new knowledge? That never worked for me.
>You're of the opinion that playing against someone better allows you to grasp new knowledge?
That has always worked for me, in life, in everything. Teachers never worked for me, as the best way for me to learn anything had been by myself and hanging with the best, or competing against the best.
The biggest improvements I've had for corr chess have been my defeats against strongest opponents, seeing the moves I missed, figuring a way to find them, using those techniques in new ways, nobody explained to me how to do it (as I've been explaining how to do to people recently, lol).
The reason I sucked at Freestyle is that I'm really bad at making quick, good decisions and judgements, it's the same reason I never could play bullet chess or blitz slower than 10 +0, and the reason I could never enjoy Bughouse chess, Crazyhouse or Atomic Chess (they're mostly played at 3 +0, too fast for me), once there's pressure I stumble and trip up. But I figured someone like me (able to learn from playing stronger opposition) but good at quick-desicion making (anybody good at bullet/blitz chess) could learn engine interaction and rule Freestyle (if they knew about it, so I'd blame bad promotion of it under this theory.) But I was wrong in all my assumptions about Freestyle, so being wrong about this too is no surprise.
I chose "post" instead of "reply", because I don't want increasing indentation to occur, as I've seen in other games.
> I've already stated in another one of your games, that e4 is a draw wasteland
Well, after more than a decade analyzing the Marshall-Counter Attack, I have basically solved it to a draw. I'm certain I could draw with it in a game against any chess entity (then again, I was certain I could draw with the Petroff against anyone several years ago, and Bouddha proved me wrong, really badly...)
1. White has better alternatives (in the Spanish; the Italian is turning out to be terrible...) Actually, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6!? failed low recently, and it seems to keep a 0.00 score black has to play the Berlin.
2. The reason I'm not playing 1.e4 in new games is that there's some interesting variations in the Sicilian with Nc6 and e6 on there somewhere (instead of draw wasteland Najdorf) that I'd rather play from the blackside.
But in general, I'd agree on current trends 1.d4!! has proven superior. I had a lot of fun with the Samisch until Om refuted it, but there's a lot of dangerous lines against black on there...
>You could hardly expect an open game here, could you?
Depends how badly you want to beat me, but I'm playing this game without expectations, as I no longer prepare against a single opponent (so I play "blind" without researching your games or anything), instead I'm preparing against the position in general.
> White has better alternatives (in the Spanish; the Italian is turning out to be terrible...)
I tried avoiding the Marshall early, with some slow-development Spanish setups, and although it wasn't as bad as the Italian (which is actually better for black with equal play) my computer was unable to find any kind of advantage in the las big tournament; probably because there isn't any.
> Depends how badly you want to beat me
For the reasons given, going the e4 route would ensure a draw, unless you play some Sicilian, which I shouldn't take as a given.
> it wasn't as bad as the Italian (which is actually better for black with equal play)
Yes. But I discovered that last week and it was a shocker! A backsolved score that is avantageous for black after Bc4? How is that even possible? It makes me wonder how many surprises are still out there, and how many people know them. Had we played 6 months ago, me as white would have played Bc4 without suspecting anything, and you could have defeated me and I wouldn't have know what is going on...
>my computer was unable to find any kind of advantage in the las big tournament; probably because there isn't any.
...against the Berlin? Just want to make sure we're on the same page. Maybe what you call "advantage" I call "complications", with the idea that if you complicate the position enough, a weaker opponent will play an innacurate move, that's advantagous (even though with perfect play it's equal). If it wasn't for the Berlin (and the Sicilian...) I'd still play 1.e4 over 1.d4.
It's still exciting times for opening theory, with main lines that were played the most in the past turning out to be bad and failing low. And a reason for games still being decided at this level is people using books like parrots and playing into those lines.
>For the reasons given, going the e4 route would ensure a draw, unless you play some Sicilian, which I shouldn't take as a given.
Yeah, I'd have played some Sicilian. Specially now that I know that you know the Italian is bad, so no chance for you to go Bc4. I'd not play the Spanish against e4 because black has 0% chance of "complications."
If you aren't confident on your superiority, you should aim for a draw with black, simple as that.
> I don't get it, you complain of meeting strong opponents with low rating that give you trouble, only to admit that you're looking for trouble (complications).
Probably because corr chess isn't for me? I always complain, regardless. I have to play weak opponents and defeat them easily? I complain. I play opponents with very high rating and manage to beat them, I complain (because I expected better from them.) I play equal rated opponents, and can't scratch them because I they play for a draw? I complain. The game has been over for +1 year and a half (for any result) but my opponent keeps on playing? I complain...
I guess I complain about the games as a whole, the satisfaction comes from specific moves that I play in positions, and their analysis, that is worth it, like when an opponent slips and I find a way to punish them, or I'm struggling and find the way to save the game. If nothing relevant happens in a game and it ends in draw it's a big waste of time, I'd rather have struggled because opponent played a stronger variation.
>If you aren't confident on your superiority, you should aim for a draw with black, simple as that.
Where's the fun in that? Maybe I could force you into some super-solid variation without complications where you can't show your superiority and this game ends in draw, I think I know those variations (Stockfish gives some 0.60 scores but there's nothing there), but we'd end the game being the same people that started it.
What I want is this game to be memorable (I've already forgotten about all my draws at FICGS, nothing interesting happened on them, so they were a waste of time), that can't be achieved if I aim for a draw.
We live in interesting times.
1. d4 Nf6
I think it showcases a critical weakness of A/B engines: that when they think they have the advantage (wrongly) they'll shape the search tree in a way where the opponent is trying as best as it can to play for a draw and save the game with what they have, while a NN that thinks is winning would move its horizon the other way, and when the A/B engine realizes this it's too late.
Oh turbo, how I wish you had the time to play anothe corr chess with me. I could play it like I do against my other opponents while you could play at a rhythm of 1 game per move if you wanted, if your free time is limited...
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5
Really, I have never been able to find complications for opponent without incurring in complications myself, the games I've lost (unless I was outplayed - but if I'm going to be outplayed it doesn't matter much what poison I decide to drink) is because my opponent played better the complicated positions themselves.
But after 1.d4 d5 it seems you could force moves that lead to a position that is "simple" (easy for white to find best moves), where black has 0% chance of counterplay, and where white has comfortable advantage.
After ...d5 here, I see no such thing, white can't stop complications (both sides don't have it easy to play best moves), black remains with chance of counterplay, and who has the advantage is unclear (the risk is, maybe white has an advantage even bigger than in the other line, but I'll never know if we don't play it.) That's what I mean by "safe" (you can't force a comfortable advantage in a simple position that I can see.)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill