|Sep-08-03|| ||patzer2: Victor produces a fine win in beating former world correspondence champion Hans Berliner. Notice how black's two pawn advantage is meaningless as the black king is trapped and unable to castle. Victor capitalizes on his advantage in development and space by simplifying to a won rook and pawn ending. |
|Apr-23-04|| ||nasmichael: The sharper play and the study of game histories makes correspondence play and its players some of the most well-versed gamers in the world. Either of these players would beat a machine mercilessly. |
|Apr-23-04|| ||CapAnson: Sure, if they could spend weeks thinking about each move... while going over game histories to find the best plans in certain positions. |
|Jun-07-04|| ||nasmichael: And why not? Why else are the games there, other than to build upon the ideas? If literature is the topic, referencing other works is the modus operandi of that community. Why not us? That is how the history is revivified, improved, recycled. That is how ideas are shared. When push comes to shove, that is all the GMs do--and with that knowledge, they can create their own ideas. Chess ideas do not spring from the ether. |
|Aug-26-05|| ||who: Why not 13...Qxe6 leaving his pawns undoubled?|
|Aug-26-05|| ||RookFile: Well, this is just a guess on my part,
but 14. Qc2 looks good.
|Aug-26-05|| ||WannaBe: Doesn't that drops the Bishop on g?|
|Aug-26-05|| ||RookFile: No, we're talking about the position
after 13.... Qxe6 (removing the queen
from d5) 14. Qc2.
|Aug-26-05|| ||Dres1: Did you just use the word "revivified"?|
|Aug-26-05|| ||RookFile: Regarding a postal player against a computer: no contest, the postal player wins easily. There are a lot of openings where the computer just gets it wrong. One that comes to mind is: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8. e5 !?? Ng4 9. Bf4 d4 10. Qf3 dxc3 11. 0-0-0. The computer thinks black is winning, but white practically has a forced win, although it takes some time. |
True, this can be mitigated somewhat if the computer has deep opening databases.
|Aug-26-05|| ||who: I wonder how long that will be true for. For the last while much of computer chess programming has been geared towards winning OTB. As they have pretty much completed that goal they may move towards winning correspondance. Berliner's method of programming computers (from what I understand) is geared towards directly that. It works on long term strategy plans. If tactical solutions have been solved that will be the next step.|
|Feb-15-06|| ||BrotherJed: A correspondence player just beat Hydra, which destroyed M. Adams in OTB.|
|Oct-19-09|| ||djbl: all (or 99%) corres' players now use engines and their use is permitted by the iccf. rybka 3 on infinite analysis will now destroy any human player...either otb or corres', regardless of how much time the human has to think. if a similar match was played now between say timmerman or oosteram v rybka 3 the engine would almost certainly win.|
|Oct-03-10|| ||jacklovecaissa: <Victor Is Always Victor And Berliner Is Never Berliner!>|
should make a funny pun :P
<Paris is always Paris and Berlin is never Berlin!>
(Jack Lang talking about how fast Berlin is changing, 2000)