OpenChess

And then there was also a curious situation during the first game of my final match against Gelfand. He made a move and went off somewhere. I replied quickly and also left the board to go and drink some water. Coincidentally, the arbiters had also gone somewhere at that point, and there were absolutely no spectators in the hall – nobody! It struck me as a very depressing spectacle for chess. Given a situation like that it would be strange if the journalists didn’t want to liven the atmosphere up a little, even if only with such interviews, don’t you think? It seems that FIDE are threatening to hold the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk again next time round. Dear chess fans, please come and support this beautiful and uncompromising game!

Uralchess: Hello, Ruslan! What's your opinion on correspondence chess? Do you think that the appearance of computers has made it obsolete, or, on the contrary, has it been raised to a higher level? Do you consider it a fully-fledged form of chess? Do you use correspondence databases, and how often?

A. I've never played a correspondence game myself. It seems to me that computers have made correspondence games deeper and more interesting. Should it be considered a fully-fledged form of chess? It's simply a slightly different type of chess, but in general the pieces move in the same way, and after all it's not “Bughouse” or some sort of “Shogi”.

I try to use correspondence chess databases. For me using them isn't as convenient as using the standard databases, and I haven't really got the hang of it. It's not so easy to look at the game lists and immediately grasp where the players were amateurs, and where they were strong players. Perhaps you can advise me where I can buy a good database of fresh correspondence games? To be honest, I don't particularly like what ChessBase have to offer.

Valchess: It'd be interesting to hear more about your view on the development of computer chess as a whole.

A. To begin with I'll state a fact: nowadays matches between humans and computers have, unfortunately, ceased to provide any sporting interest. In a long match it's difficult even to compete against a program playing on a standard notebook. It's more interesting, at the moment, to watch computers play each other. It's a blessing that they can play, without getting tired, even for nights on end! Programs are also good analysis assistants, and for some people they've even replaced coaches.

I recently read a story on the internet about a match between Rybka and the free program Houdini. The final result came as something of a surprise to me. After all, a commercial program should have some sort of advantage over a free one! Although that same Rybka previously lost a match to the program Zappa which, however, didn't stop Rybka's creators from improving it further. I expect the same this time round!

For the average user the appearance of a strong free program is an undoubted plus. Personally, on my desktop computer, I use the free Ubuntu instead of Windows, and Open Office instead of Microsoft Office. It's great that we've now got such an alternative in chess as well.

Previously there were a great number of programs: Junior, Nimzo, Hiarcs, Fritz, Shredder. At the same time it wasn't entirely clear to me what the main difference between them was, particularly as all the programs had almost identical packaging, with only the colour of the board distinguishing them. Then Rybka appeared, which you could download from a link you were sent after paying. And then there was a new version, packaged differently as well, as Aquarium. Real progress for the user!

Now the free Houdini is available. I've tried it, and it genuinely is a good program. In certain respects it's even more convenient to work with. Rybka, for example, tries to use up almost all the resources it can, and at some point my computer begins to hang. I haven't seen that with Houdini: I can comfortably multi-task.

It'll be curious to see how chess programs develop after this. I heard something vague about "cloud" computing. But until you try it yourself it's not very clear how useful that would be

For me, so as not to waste money on buying powerful computer technology which you still have to operate, it would be interesting to buy databases of computer games played by strong programs on powerful computers. The endgame in those games wouldn't be so important, so you could limit them to, let's say, 40 moves.

But what will be more commercially warranted, and what will they offer users - that's something we'll have to wait and see.