Correspondence GM ?

[Hood]

Hi,

what do you think , what is neccessary to got theGM title in the aspects mentioned below:
1) Hardware
2) Software
3) Player

Rgds
Hood

[LucenaTheLucid]

I don't know if Uri Blass posts on here anymore but I know he is a Correspondence GM. I also know he is a fairly strong player 2000-2200 range. I also know he used Rybka for analysis (strongest engine at the time he was earning his norms).

My best guess would be that you wouldn't need a top of the line computer but I'm sure it would help immensely. Also a fairly good knowledge of the game. Creating long term attacks while using the computer to check for blunders...this would be my best guess. I don't really know though, I'm a fairly weak player myself (1300-1400).

[Uly]

I doubt if having fairly good knowledge of the game is necessary, I'm just a 1400-1500 weak player, yet I've been praised for my non existent high chess knowledge of the game by corr players.

I think fairly good knowledge of the strengths and weakness of the engines (such as seeing a position and thinking "Oh! This is the kind position that Critter would analyze best!") and intelligent use of resources (like "I have a nice advantage, it's time to change gears and completely change the analysis method/engines used even if what I've been using has been working") can replace chess knowledge.

I recall Uri Blass's comments similar to this, mentioning that his opponents were playing weaker than what Rybka 3 unattended would play, so the main strength of a correspondence chess player comes from the engines, and how he uses them.

The key is knowing where to overrule the engine and recognizing bad moves that engine suggest, but a 1300 player can do it with experience. I'd say the most important thing is software, if all the software that you have misses a move that you didn't see, that you would have missed even if you were Magnus Carlsen, you need better software.

If you already got the best software out there, you need better analysis methods, when a critical move was missed and you're suddenly losing a game, it's time to ask what could you have done differently to find this move, I daresay one can only get better by losing games, where one's flaws are evident.

Hardware only speeds up things, but the tree of chess positions raises exponentially, so by doubling your speed you could either play a game a little better, or play twice the games at the same level, I choose the latter.

[Gino]

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

[Hood]

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

It is telling sth but they can be the chess composers or solvers so their chessknowledge could be based not on computer analysis only. The Elo list contains the active on board players.

The tournament is the race so all 3 factors shall be important . I doubt if 1300 player is able to correct program mistake.
The difference in Elo is over 1000.

If we stick on software (pesimistic) to eliminate the error we shall run some programs (how many and which ones)to analyse the same position but for that stronger hardware is neccessary. So the software concept implies the strong hardware.

Is there any chance of importance of the human factor ? I hope yes.

Rgds
Hood

[Gerold]

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

It is telling sth but they can be the chess composers or solvers so their chessknowledge could be based not on computer analysis only. The Elo list contains the active on board players.

The tournament is the race so all 3 factors shall be important . I doubt if 1300 player is able to correct program mistake.
The difference in Elo is over 1000.

If we stick on software (pesimistic) to eliminate the error we shall run some programs (how many and which ones)to analyse the same position but for that stronger hardware is neccessary. So the software concept implies the strong hardware.

Is there any chance of importance of the human factor ? I hope yes.

Very good question. The answer is yes.
I have been part of teams where we played one person with the strongest engine. Getting input from different people with
engines we have most of the time beat a single engine. Sometimes we would change course completely which sometimes
would better the engine we were playing.


Rgds
Hood

[Gino]

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

It is telling sth but they can be the chess composers or solvers so their chessknowledge could be based not on computer analysis only. The Elo list contains the active on board players.

The tournament is the race so all 3 factors shall be important . I doubt if 1300 player is able to correct program mistake.
The difference in Elo is over 1000.

If we stick on software (pesimistic) to eliminate the error we shall run some programs (how many and which ones)to analyse the same position but for that stronger hardware is neccessary. So the software concept implies the strong hardware.

Is there any chance of importance of the human factor ? I hope yes.

Rgds
Hood

I believe there is a human factor but perhaps it is not related to OTB strength but understanding of how to best take advantage of chess engines.

[Uly]

I believe there is a human factor but perhaps it is not related to OTB strength but understanding of how to best take advantage of chess engines.

+1.

I think they're interchangeably, i.e. a player that has a great understanding of chess would have success with just a single engine on his side to protect him from tactical or positional struggles, and would be able to have a more "to the point" analysis method, that worked with minimal positions analyzed.

[Hood]

All true but the all true?
Many people have similar hardware, software but there are resultative games .
It means mistakes are made!

rgds Hood

[Dr. Ivannik]

Gentlemen

I remember the good old days when a correspondence chess player's tools where his chess books and notes. Is the use of engines allowed in today's correspondence tournaments???

Dr Ivannik