<It has been stressed that the strength of an Advanced Chess player does not come from any of the components of the human-computer team, but rather from the symbiosis of the two. This means that, even if a human chess player is stronger than the computer program he is using, he will be able to increase his playing strength even further with good Advanced Chess play, and vice versa: if a human player is weaker than the computer program he is using, he will still be able to play with a strength that is even greater than that of the computer. The strength of an Advanced Chess player lies in the combination of the computer's tactical accuracy and the human's creativity and sagacity, provided that both team components do possess these qualities.>

even if in part he's right about the "calculate ability"...

but <slo> didnt saw ( or didnt WANT to saw?!....who knows...) an important and smart explanation <plato> gave:

<If we could play in person I too would prefer such a match without computers. However, neither of us knows the other person's identity or wherabouts.....If we don't allow computers, but one player uses computer assistance anyway for certain moves, that would, of course, be an insurmountable advantage. And there would be no way of knowing for sure if the other player used computer assistance on certain moves or not. This is, of course, the main problem.>

SO!!!...lets go with the match...all of us were curios to see your skill, not only about arguing, but OTB!!!!

after all the people here its supposted to be chess-lovers ( isnt it <slo>?!)..... and a match, (even with comp. support) its better then only bla-bla-blaming!!!!........

in part you are right... but, focus on the fact, in this challenge the opponents dsent see each other....

<i suggested that precisely because there arent any engines>

I hope it goes without saying, but my comment was that Advanced Chess is a truer test of chess skill than Capablanca chess (not regular chess!) because:

1) Unlike Capablanca Chess, the rules of Advanced Chess are the same as regular chess, and

2) Computer engines already exist for Capablanca Chess, so your suggestion wouldn't help in that regard.

Forgive me, I had forgotten that this never happened more than once in regular chess. Or did it? If it did, I guess it's also very debatable that any chess skill is required in regular chess, too.

<slomarko: thats very debatable>

Yes, you'll hear no disagreement from me there. Regular chess is clearly a much better indication of chess skill, hands down. Unfortunately, it is not an option here because if computer assistance was disallowed, both of us would suspect the other of cheating.

<The game I'm referring to is the game Keres-Botvinnik, from the third cycle of the 1948 World Championship match-tournament. There's good reason to think that Keres was pressured not to out-do Botvinnik in the event (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt... for a good survey of the documentary evidence), and some (not me) think it went to the point that Keres actually threw his first four games against Botvinnik, only winning the last one when it no longer mattered. (In fact, some go on to say that Botvinnik threw the last one, to make sure Reshevsky wouldn't finish ahead of Keres!)

As part of the case for the "Keres threw the games" conclusion, they point to particular positions where Keres' play seemed especially suspect, and the game in question offers a favorite example. Rather than make the whole case here, however, I refer you to my new video: http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/vie.... You'll find all the elaboration you could want there, along with some amusing stories, plenty of analysis - and plenty of analytical errors, including some embarrassing ones by those who think the fix is in.

Towards the end, 66.Kg4 seems the only decent move, and then 67.Kh2... what's that about?

Keres was probably lost by then, anyway, but it's hard to believe that the endgame as it was around move 45 ended up the way it did...>