Why Correspondence Chess Is Still Popular Among Elite Players (nytimes.com) 28
Players can take days or even weeks to take a turn, and they have embraced the use of software to find the best moves. The New York Times: [...] The International Correspondence Chess Federation allows players to consult engines during their games, making the matches a hybrid competition that involves the strategy and planning of humans guided by the accuracy of machines. In correspondence chess, players may spend days or even weeks on a single move. A typical game can last for more than a year.
What does it mean to be the best in the world at a game in which a player's strength is enhanced -- or neutralized -- by computers? When asked about his own approach, Mr. Edwards said that his style was similar to that of Tigran Petrosian, the Armenian grandmaster known for his fortresslike defensive play. In most of Mr. Edwards's games, he tries to create and press a small advantage with the goal of gently nudging his opponents over the edge where, even with the help of the strongest engine, they are unable to escape an inevitable defeat.
Even with such a plan, a majority of correspondence games end in a draw because it is nearly impossible to beat an opponent who has access to the defensive resources of a chess engine. Out of the 136 games played in the 32nd World Correspondence Chess Championship, 119 were draws. What's more, when games are decisive, this is sometimes because of human error. Given the high number of draws and the difficulty of winning even a single game, could Mr. Edwards be the last world champion correspondence player? He didn't seem to think so. "Most outsiders and many players believe that correspondence chess is dying," he said, "but the best correspondence players don't believe that."
What does it mean to be the best in the world at a game in which a player's strength is enhanced -- or neutralized -- by computers? When asked about his own approach, Mr. Edwards said that his style was similar to that of Tigran Petrosian, the Armenian grandmaster known for his fortresslike defensive play. In most of Mr. Edwards's games, he tries to create and press a small advantage with the goal of gently nudging his opponents over the edge where, even with the help of the strongest engine, they are unable to escape an inevitable defeat.
Even with such a plan, a majority of correspondence games end in a draw because it is nearly impossible to beat an opponent who has access to the defensive resources of a chess engine. Out of the 136 games played in the 32nd World Correspondence Chess Championship, 119 were draws. What's more, when games are decisive, this is sometimes because of human error. Given the high number of draws and the difficulty of winning even a single game, could Mr. Edwards be the last world champion correspondence player? He didn't seem to think so. "Most outsiders and many players believe that correspondence chess is dying," he said, "but the best correspondence players don't believe that."
Simple... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's popular because you don't have to actually be around people to play it.
This seems genuinely stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, a competition over who can use chess software the best. What a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
What's sad is your inability of read an article summary. The summary specifically described how using chess software is expected now in these competitions (hence the massive rate of Draw games). You might as well just run two pieces of software against each other for all the value this competition seems to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, didn't mean to respond AC.
On the contrary (Score:3)
Chess was supposedly invented to teach war strategy, right? Submitting your problem for advice, then picking the best solution and sending it off to see what happens when it's implemented is a far better analogue for the real thing than the way Chess is traditionally played.
Re: (Score:1)
When only an incredibly small number of games are even won and of those the vast majority are on the otherside lost due to the opposing player's human errors the only strategy to be learned is always follow the advice of the demonstratively better piece of software.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but which software? And which advice? Chess engines can give multiple move suggestions, and you have to anticipate which suggestion your opponent is going to take, and pick the one that best matches it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
From the summary:
"Even with such a plan, a majority of correspondence games end in a draw because it is nearly impossible to beat an opponent who has access to the defensive resources of a chess engine. Out of the 136 games played in the 32nd World Correspondence Chess Championship, 119 were draws. What's more, when games are decisive, this is sometimes because of human error. Given the high number of draws and the difficulty of winning even a single game, could Mr. Edwards be the last world champion corres
Re: (Score:2)
Chess is nothing like modern warfare.
It's not much like any kind of warfare. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but this still seems like an improvement in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Chess was supposedly invented to teach war strategy, right?
No, not right. It is a game, that is all.
The only game half assed being able to be transfered to war/strategies is Go and its sister/brother games.
Submitting your problem for advice, then picking the best solution and sending it off to see what happens when it's implemented is a far better analogue for the real thing than the way Chess is traditionally played.
It is most certainly a challenging approach/thing for people who like to "meta game" or "me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Right, because driving a car (which requires skill) is the same as following the instructions that a piece of software gives you. Not a strong analogy.
If you read the entire summary you'll discover that in the extremely rare case a player even wins under these conditions it's typically only because the opposing player didn't listen to the AI.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Correspondence chess, is also known as chess by mail. Or email, likely these days.
That means you have about 24 hours to make a move (or more), and most chess software can compute a move in well under stand on modern hardware.
But the problem is likely if you use say, 10 different chess engines, you'll have 10 different possible moves. You, as chess player, have to decide which of the 10 to actually make. And most chess engines d
Re: (Score:1)
But the problem is likely if you use say, 10 different chess engines, you'll have 10 different possible moves. You, as chess player, have to decide which of the 10 to actually make. And most chess engines don't really give you a justification for the move, so you're left to figure out overall strategy to make plays that don't put you in a boneheaded position.
Sure but if the vast majority of games go to draws and among those that are actually won it's typically due to human error as the summary states then the differences between different pieces of software arent terribly meaningful as they almost always lead to the same result.
Alright, Hol? (Score:2)
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
A chance to lock horns with an intellect of that calibre? I'd be a fool not to. Pawn to King four eh? He's a sly one.
No computers (Score:2)
The popular online correspondence chess services (chess.com, lichess.org) do NOT allow computer use but you can consult openings databases derived from human v human games.
I have recently switched from international chess to its Japanese version shogi and play correspondence shogi on lishogi.org. A better way learn then endless blitz games.
Re: No computers (Score:2)
Right. USCF, FIDE, and most other organizations do not permit the use of chess engines, but do allow the use of any written material. E.g. looking a position up in a database would likely be a no no, but looking one up in a book would be fine.