| |
Main
Date: 15 Apr 2008 14:24:44
From: Andrew Fabbro
Subject: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
Fast-forward to 2008 and obviously computers are much better - you can
buy a desktop system that plays at a GM level.
My question is...doesn't this make correspondence chess rather
impossible? There's such a huge opportunity for players to cheat and
it's impossible to stop.
I suppose one could play CC with prisoners...
Just wondering what the state of CC is today.
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 02:34:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess and ChessBase
|
On Apr 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Andrew Fabbro <[email protected]> wrote...
> >My understanding is that something like ChessBase is perfectly legal,
> >since it's akin to using an opening reference book, which has always
> >been legal. There is even a series of articles on the ChessBase site
> >explaining how to use CB to store and manage your postal games. But
> >it's only a simple click in CB to go from "find this position" to
> >"analyze this position"...
>
> The author of ChessBase often reads these newsgroups. If you ask, he may
> be willing to create a version that refuses to do anything that is Illegal
> in Correspondence Chess. Does it have a .ini file? Maybe it would make
> sense to have the .ini file select between two modes rather tnan bothering
> with two versions. Or, if the "analyze this position" option calls an
> external chess engine, maybe just deleting that engine would do the trick.
You can't rely on "outsiders" to keep you from
cheating. There is only *one person* who can do
the job, and if he isn't up to the task, FIRE him and
find someone who is.
-- the Donald bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 02:30:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 17, 1:14 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You need a different function; there are special
> > "mate finder modes" which are designed just for
> > this kind of work.
>
> Yes I know. Arena/Chest is currently working on my #10, 26 hours so
> far and still ruminating over a few moves. Fritz, using Mate 2.13,
> could probably solve the problem in 2-3 days. Maybe. Arena/Chest is
> fast, as fast as Alybadix or WinChloe certainly, and it is a bit
> faster, I think, than Gustav.
>
> Again, I could solve a #10 faster than any of these commercial or
> freeware programs running on the computers I use. The problem is I
> have about 1/2 hour to analyze and then feed it into the matefinder to
> see what I might have missed. But given the same amount of time to
> think about it, I could do it at nearly 100% in half the time it takes
> the computer. Of course, the computer is always 100%.....
What about buying a modern-day computer and
tossing out the old TRS-80?
In addition, there might be some settings you
can tweak to make the chess engines think less
about positional factors, and more about tactics.
I found one free engine download that came with
about four different settings; the default setting
was "ultra-positional", which seemed rather odd
since tactics are 96.3% of the game.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 02:26:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Botvinnik cheating?
|
On Apr 17, 1:12 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), help bot
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I have a hard time putting my head around the
> >idea of three people fitting onto one chair; if the
> >other two got up when MB sat down, then the
> >idea above is suspect. But if they all three
> >remained seated, I can only assume that it was
> >a very, very wide chair... .
>
> Or that they were very,very hungry.
Nonsense. Chairs are made of wood, which is
barely edible, and not particularly nutritious. (My
favorite would perhaps be the sugar maple).
I am trying to imagine a pyramid formation: the
two "helpers" form the base, and Mr. Botvinnik
balances himself on-a-top (other examples of this
same concept can be found in, say, an old James
Bond film).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:55:32
From:
Subject: Correspondence Chess and ChessBase
|
Andrew Fabbro <[email protected] > wrote...
>My understanding is that something like ChessBase is perfectly legal,
>since it's akin to using an opening reference book, which has always
>been legal. There is even a series of articles on the ChessBase site
>explaining how to use CB to store and manage your postal games. But
>it's only a simple click in CB to go from "find this position" to
>"analyze this position"...
The author of ChessBase often reads these newsgroups. If you ask, he may
be willing to create a version that refuses to do anything that is Illegal
in Correspondence Chess. Does it have a .ini file? Maybe it would make
sense to have the .ini file select between two modes rather tnan bothering
with two versions. Or, if the "analyze this position" option calls an
external chess engine, maybe just deleting that engine would do the trick.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 22:15:33
From: Andrew Fabbro
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
My thought was not that computers are perfect, but that if you use a
computer, you are likely to avoid most 2-6 move tactical shots. Your
odds of making a serious blunder are greatly reduced. At the sub-
expert level (I assume CC is played there!) these are huge advantages.
My understanding is that something like ChessBase is perfectly legal,
since it's akin to using an opening reference book, which has always
been legal. There is even a series of articles on the ChessBase site
explaining how to use CB to store and manage your postal games. But
it's only a simple click in CB to go from "find this position" to
"analyze this position"...
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:14:10
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 17, 9:24 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> You need a different function; there are special
> "mate finder modes" which are designed just for
> this kind of work.
Yes I know. Arena/Chest is currently working on my #10, 26 hours so
far and still ruminating over a few moves. Fritz, using Mate 2.13,
could probably solve the problem in 2-3 days. Maybe. Arena/Chest is
fast, as fast as Alybadix or WinChloe certainly, and it is a bit
faster, I think, than Gustav.
Again, I could solve a #10 faster than any of these commercial or
freeware programs running on the computers I use. The problem is I
have about 1/2 hour to analyze and then feed it into the matefinder to
see what I might have missed. But given the same amount of time to
think about it, I could do it at nearly 100% in half the time it takes
the computer. Of course, the computer is always 100%.....
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 09:00:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Botvinnik cheating?
|
On Apr 17, 10:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
> For what it's worth, Botvinnik himself says of his simul game with
> Capablanca:
>
> "Taking my place at the table was no easy matter, but the two second
> category players, who were already sitting together on my chair,
> 'graciously' admitted me into their company. It is probable that
> Capablanca did not immediately understand who was playing on this
> board, since from somewhere at the side a hand would thrust out and
> make a move. My companions bombarded me with suggestions, but even at
> the age of 14 I had a firm character -- I played my own game." --
> Botvinnik's Best Games, Volume 1: 1925-1941, page 10
>
> Capablanca,Jose Raul - Botvinnik,Mikhail [D51]
> Leningrad simul, 20.11.1925:
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Bb4 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Qb3 c5
> 8.dxc5 Qa5 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.0=960=960 0=960 11.Nf3 Be6 12.Nd4 Rac8 13.c6 Bxc=
3
> 14.Qxc3 Qxa2 15.Bd3 bxc6 16.Kc2 c5 17.Nxe6 Qa4+ 18.b3 Qa2+ 19.Qb2
> Qxb2+ 20.Kxb2 fxe6 21.f3 Rc7 22.Ra1 c4 23.bxc4 dxc4 24.Bc2 Rb8+ 25.Kc1
> Nd5 26.Re1 c3 27.Ra3 Nb4 28.Re2 Rd8 29.e4 Rc6 30.Re3 Rd2 31.Rexc3
> Rxc2+ 32.Rxc2 Rxc2+ 0=961
This description makes it sound as if the "helpers"
were weaker than MB; second-category?
Other versions had it that the folks "helping" MB
were described as "masters". In any case, weak
or strong, different players "see" different ideas--
as I discovered while watching a stronger player
tackle IMs on ICC. This guy knew certain lines in
his pet openings *very* well, but would often freeze
at the point where some obvious tactical shot
leaped out at me.
I have a hard time putting my head around the
idea of three people fitting onto one chair; if the
other two got up when MB sat down, then the
idea above is suspect. But if they all three
remained seated, I can only assume that it was
a very, very wide chair... .
-- fat bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:12:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Botvinnik cheating?
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I have a hard time putting my head around the
>idea of three people fitting onto one chair; if the
>other two got up when MB sat down, then the
>idea above is suspect. But if they all three
>remained seated, I can only assume that it was
>a very, very wide chair... .
Or that they were very,very hungry.
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:35:15
From:
Subject: Re: Botvinnik cheating?
|
On Apr 17, 10:16=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:10 am, Chvsanchez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Even in simultaneous exhibitions,
> > > with hundreds of spectators watching, there
> > > were more than a few who utilized "help" from
> > > much stronger chess players; one famous
> > > anecdote had Mikhail Botvinnik defeating
> > > Jose Capablanca this way; they talk about
> > > such things as if they were "routine"... .
> > Please explain.
>
> =A0 Okay. =A0You enter a simul, along with say, a
> hundred other players, and there are spectators
> who supposedly are merely observing the games.
> But a few of these "spectators" comment during
> play, offering advice on what to play when the
> simul-giver is toward the other end of the room.
> =A0 These "advisers" would not deem it proper to
> enter such a simul themselves, as they are too
> strong-- but this doesn't stop them from offering
> advice to others.
>
> =A0 Some sources will, years later, recount how
> the young prodigy defeated a great player in a
> simul; but did he, really?
For what it's worth, Botvinnik himself says of his simul game with
Capablanca:
"Taking my place at the table was no easy matter, but the two second
category players, who were already sitting together on my chair,
'graciously' admitted me into their company. It is probable that
Capablanca did not immediately understand who was playing on this
board, since from somewhere at the side a hand would thrust out and
make a move. My companions bombarded me with suggestions, but even at
the age of 14 I had a firm character -- I played my own game." --
Botvinnik's Best Games, Volume 1: 1925-1941, page 10
Capablanca,Jose Raul - Botvinnik,Mikhail [D51]
Leningrad simul, 20.11.1925:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Bb4 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Qb3 c5
8.dxc5 Qa5 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.0=960=960 0=960 11.Nf3 Be6 12.Nd4 Rac8 13.c6 Bxc3
14.Qxc3 Qxa2 15.Bd3 bxc6 16.Kc2 c5 17.Nxe6 Qa4+ 18.b3 Qa2+ 19.Qb2
Qxb2+ 20.Kxb2 fxe6 21.f3 Rc7 22.Ra1 c4 23.bxc4 dxc4 24.Bc2 Rb8+ 25.Kc1
Nd5 26.Re1 c3 27.Ra3 Nb4 28.Re2 Rd8 29.e4 Rc6 30.Re3 Rd2 31.Rexc3
Rxc2+ 32.Rxc2 Rxc2+ 0=961
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:24:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 16, 6:32 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > >Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
> > > >of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
> > > >correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
> > > >they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
> > But not in certain types of positions (i.e. mate-in-eight
> > moves).
> No, even now computers have trouble with long mates.
Are you talking about where a programmer has
deliberately decided against optimizing this? One
example was the creator of Rybka; he got a lot of
complaints, and promised a "fix".
> I have a mate in-
> ten position I am trying to get sound
Get sound?
> from an obvious mate in eight;
> each proofing by the computer takes about a day.
You need a different function; there are special
"mate finder modes" which are designed just for
this kind of work.
I've found that before the advent of computers,
even the world champions could not seem to
agree on what was going on in complex positions.
But now, with computers, we can at least get to
some sort of agreement on the result of tactical
skirmishes, and obviously, with endgame table-
bases, the thinking of humans has been refuted.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:16:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Botvinnik cheating?
|
On Apr 16, 1:10 am, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Even in simultaneous exhibitions,
> > with hundreds of spectators watching, there
> > were more than a few who utilized "help" from
> > much stronger chess players; one famous
> > anecdote had Mikhail Botvinnik defeating
> > Jose Capablanca this way; they talk about
> > such things as if they were "routine"... .
> Please explain.
Okay. You enter a simul, along with say, a
hundred other players, and there are spectators
who supposedly are merely observing the games.
But a few of these "spectators" comment during
play, offering advice on what to play when the
simul-giver is toward the other end of the room.
These "advisers" would not deem it proper to
enter such a simul themselves, as they are too
strong-- but this doesn't stop them from offering
advice to others.
Some sources will, years later, recount how
the young prodigy defeated a great player in a
simul; but did he, really?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:33:52
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 16, 8:55 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I play correspondence-style (turn-based) on internet sites, and I
> don't even think about using a computer to cheat. Many others feel
> the same way, because we play for the fun of the game, not for an
> unearned ego boost coming from winning with illicit help.
>
> I still maintain that if chess isn't fun then it's time to find
> another hobby. And where's the fun in letting a computer decide your
> moves?
Playing Advanced chess is quite fun, so using a computer in
conjunction with your brain can produce some pretty awesome games.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:32:14
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 15, 11:55 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:45 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> > >Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
> > >of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
> > >correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
> > >they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
>
> But not in certain types of positions (i.e. mate-in-eight
> moves).
No, even now computers have trouble with long mates. I have a mate in-
ten position I am trying to get sound, from an obvious mate in eight;
each proofing by the computer takes about a day.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 06:55:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
I play correspondence-style (turn-based) on internet sites, and I
don't even think about using a computer to cheat. Many others feel
the same way, because we play for the fun of the game, not for an
unearned ego boost coming from winning with illicit help.
I still maintain that if chess isn't fun then it's time to find
another hobby. And where's the fun in letting a computer decide your
moves?
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 23:05:00
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
"Andrew Fabbro" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:701f8068-76bd-4772-9805-9ab2a372b386@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
> of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
> correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
> they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
What are the results between computers and the very top
correspondence players?
>
> Fast-forward to 2008 and obviously computers are much better - you can
> buy a desktop system that plays at a GM level.
>
> My question is...doesn't this make correspondence chess rather
> impossible? There's such a huge opportunity for players to cheat and
> it's impossible to stop.
>
> I suppose one could play CC with prisoners...
>
> Just wondering what the state of CC is today.
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 22:10:54
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Botvinnik cheating?
|
> Even in simultaneous exhibitions,
> with hundreds of spectators watching, there
> were more than a few who utilized "help" from
> much stronger chess players; one famous
> anecdote had Mikhail Botvinnik defeating
> Jose Capablanca this way; they talk about
> such things as if they were "routine"... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Please explain.
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 21:55:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Apr 15, 9:45 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> >Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
> >of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
> >correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
> >they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
But not in certain types of positions (i.e. mate-in-eight
moves).
> >Fast-forward to 2008 and obviously computers are much better - you can
> >buy a desktop system that plays at a GM level.
Heck, these days you can buy a cell-phone that
plays at the GM level, most likely.
> >My question is...doesn't this make correspondence chess rather
> >impossible? There's such a huge opportunity for players to cheat and
> >it's impossible to stop.
>
> >I suppose one could play CC with prisoners...
What if there's a chess master in the same prison?
> >Just wondering what the state of CC is today.
> I personally have gathered enough like-minded players that we
> just have private games with each other.
>
> Consider, however, what it would mean were I to once again
> become active in rated correspondence chess. I am a class
> A player (1901 postal rating, established before computers)
Damn, you are old! Before computers, you say?
> Anyone who I play who is about the same rating as I am is
> pretty obviously not letting a computer choose his moves
> for him.
"Ivan" is allegedly 1800 strength, while the newer
version, Ivan II, is right smack at your old rating
level.
> What's the latest rating for Rybka, 3000? It's
> only at the high end that there is a problem.
When I played at ChessWorld.com, nobody
used a computer against me; I know because
I won every game.
> The Top Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Use A Computer
> To Generate Moves In Your Correspondence Chess Games
>
> 10. Your opponent may have a better computer.
Unlikely.
> 9. Your computer may play a stupid move.
It's worth the risk.
> 8. You can't take credit for a win.
Wrong. People not only take the credit for such
things, they even have been known to get higher-
paying jobs from bogus games, invented to boost
their USCF ratings.
> 7. You can't take credit for a draw.
Wrong again.
> 6. Your computer might break down.
Then how will you enter your moves? And if I
can't read my emails for more than, say, two
days, my head will explode!
> 5. You might be challenged to a live chess game someday and
> be exposed as being much worse thatn your CC rating implies.
This happens all the time. It is no different from
the many players who cherry-pick their "peak"
rating, then compare that to everyone else's
actual, current ratings. Take Taylor Kingston,
for instance; he is not bothered one iota by the
fact that Sam Sloan would probably beat him
senseless in an OTB game.
> 4. You might be caught by another computer doing cheating analysis.
What percentage of all cheaters are caught
that way? I don't know of anyone except
"Sanny", who was simply unaware of the rules
against testing his own creation unannounced
without a special account. By the way, those
poor fools were all beaten like carrots!
> 3. You'll be contributing to the death of Correspondence Chess.
Not death... rebirth.
> 2. You'll lose self respect.
This never stopped anyone I know from other,
similar actions. In fact, I think more than a few
felt that they somehow gained respect by
having an online handle with a bogus, higher
rating.
> 1. You'll be cheating.
The real reason not to cheat this way is that it
is so much more fun to operate one's computer
in a "live" game. Correspondence chess appeals
more to those who relish the idea of a book
openings research contest. You aren't likely to
find a lot of folks playing random-chess at these
time controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Back before the advent of strong chess
computers, I recall that many of my opponents
would resort to lying about their receipt dates in
an effort to gain extra thinking time. Nobody
argued that this was leading to the "death" of
correspondence chess back then.
And of course, no matter how far back you
might go in time, there was always the
possibility of cheating by consulting with
other players. Computers are just the latest
fashion. Even in simultaneous exhibitions,
with hundreds of spectators watching, there
were more than a few who utilized "help" from
much stronger chess players; one famous
anecdote had Mikhail Botvinnik defeating
Jose Capablanca this way; they talk about
such things as if they were "routine"... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 01:45:05
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
Andrew Fabbro wrote:
>
>Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
>of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
>correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
>they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
>
>Fast-forward to 2008 and obviously computers are much better - you can
>buy a desktop system that plays at a GM level.
>
>My question is...doesn't this make correspondence chess rather
>impossible? There's such a huge opportunity for players to cheat and
>it's impossible to stop.
>
>I suppose one could play CC with prisoners...
>
>Just wondering what the state of CC is today.
I personally have gathered enough like-minded players that we
just have private games with each other.
Consider, however, what it would mean were I to once again
become active in rated correspondence chess. I am a class
A player (1901 postal rating, established before computers)
Anyone who I play who is about the same rating as I am is
pretty obviously not letting a computer choose his moves
for him. What's the latest rating for Rybka, 3000? It's
only at the high end that there is a problem.
I think that you will find the following webpages to be enlightening:
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/art003.htm
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm
http://www.dfki.de/~busemann/computers.html
http://www.chessbase.com/workshop2.asp?id=3749
http://correspondencechess.com/knudsen/future.htm
http://chess.kearman.com/html/chscomp.htm
http://blog.chess.com/piotr/correspondence-chess---ivar-bern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess#Computer_assistance
The Top Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Use A Computer
To Generate Moves In Your Correspondence Chess Games
10. Your opponent may have a better computer.
9. Your computer may play a stupid move.
8. You can't take credit for a win.
7. You can't take credit for a draw.
6. Your computer might break down.
5. You might be challenged to a live chess game someday and
be exposed as being much worse thatn your CC rating implies.
4. You might be caught by another computer doing cheating analysis.
3. You'll be contributing to the death of Correspondence Chess.
2. You'll lose self respect.
1. You'll be cheating.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 01:28:36
From:
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess...dead?
|
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Fabbro
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Reading back in some old Chess Lifes in the early 90s, there was bit
>of discussion about people using computers to generate their moves in
>correspondence chess. Back then the dominant thought was "I only hope
>they do," as most CC masters were far better than computers.
>
>Fast-forward to 2008 and obviously computers are much better - you can
>buy a desktop system that plays at a GM level.
>
>My question is...doesn't this make correspondence chess rather
>impossible? There's such a huge opportunity for players to cheat and
>it's impossible to stop.
>
>I suppose one could play CC with prisoners...
>
>Just wondering what the state of CC is today.
I play on Chessworld.net, which is a CC server. I have to suspect
anyone of cheating (I run all my games through Fritz after each game
to help me improve). Only once was I accused of using a program.
I think CC is doing just fine.
J.Lohner
|
|
