Of course they areDr. Ivannik wrote: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
Cheers,
Dr.D
Of course they areDr. Ivannik wrote: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
I remember thouse good days , too but the things has changed .Dr. Ivannik wrote: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
Yeah, but the thread is talking about a Correspondence GM, and yeah, some guy with old hardware could have analysis methods with Stockfish 1.9 that allow him to beat people with worse analysis methods even if they're running high end hardware with better engines, giving him the chance to become Correspondence GM, but it's definitively not going to be about sitting in front of the computer to watch Stockfish reaching high depth, it's going to take a lot of work, and the slower the hardware the higher the effort that he needs.jim uselton wrote:Can he not beat any GM in the world? Just curious! How would he do in a 10 game match with Anand or Topalov?
There is only one thing missing. I used to play correspondence chess until the engines came into play. I have all of the engines; if I want to play against an engine, why would I spend the time and money to play correspondence chess? I can play against chess engines at home on my computers. I prefer to pay against people which means correspondence chess is out and otb chess is the only avenue available now.Hood wrote:Are we able to have any conclusions ?
a) analysis methods -> what GUIs neccessary
b) hardware -> minimal reasonable
c) software -> engines
rgds Hood