05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Fat LadyWhen were Fischer's 4 wins?
I believe Tal had a plus score against Fischer too, mostly due to the 4-0 drubbing he handed to a 16 year old Fischer in the 1959 candidates tournament.
Edit: I was wrong, I've just checked and they ended up tied at four wins apiece with five draws.
05 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamI think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.
Im not amazed. Iv heard that competitive correspondence players can use engines designed to check blunders but have no positional understanding at all.
I wonder if he ever said which engine he used.
I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.
05 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by powershakerPlease read the link I posted. The guy in question uses (an) engine(s). Plus, he played one of the weaker versions of Hydra.
I read in CHess Life that a dude - in a correspondence chess game versus Hydra - defeated Hydra and his rating wasn't even beyond a 2600 correspondence rating.
Adams did not play well against Hydra, but Hydra is phenomenally good. I think you could have given Mickey decades to make his moves, and he'd still have struggled.
07 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Fat LadyYes, you're right, but I'm speaking in sanctioned terms. I believe Geller is the only one in "match" play. I may be wrong though.
I may be wrong, but I thought several people had a plus score against Fischer:
Efim Geller (W5 L3 D2)
Anthony Santasiere (W1 L0 D1)
Max Pavey (W1 L0 D1)
Abe Turner (W2 L0 D0)
Dr. Joseph Platz (W2 L0 D0)
Dragoljub Janosevic (W1 L0 D2)
07 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellWe could always ask Motown Dave, who says that he is a Correspondence Chess Candidate Master 🙂.
I think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.
I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.
07 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellYeah, but there's something about an Adams, isn't there? hehe That's my last name, so I should know. lol
Please read the link I posted. The guy in question uses (an) engine(s). Plus, he played one of the weaker versions of Hydra.
Adams did not play well against Hydra, but Hydra is phenomenally good. I think you could have given Mickey decades to make his moves, and he'd still have struggled.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by leestaticLasker did not play Rubinstein for the title nor did he beat Schlecter. I do not know if he proved he was better then Pillsbury or not.
My money would go on Lasker undisputed champion for 27 years, a reign no other player has even approached.
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KirwanFischer beats Tal:
When were Fischer's 4 wins?
Bled 1961 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008404
Curacao 1962 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008413
Herceg Novi 1970 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044336
Herceg Novi 1970 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044701
The last two were blitz games, which I must admit I didn't realise when I read that Fischer had beaten Tal four times. Nevertheless, they are both very good and hard fought games!
This is worth watching if you're a fan of Fischer or Tal (and what chess player isn't?)
&search=benkoe
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by SupermanHere's an interesting opinion as to why Capa was so good even though he really didn't study:
I dont think preparation would matter, in the case of capablanca, he never readed a chess book, he was the best natural player, but all GMs have this natural talent.
So if it comes to preparation on studying modern and advanced opening theory, how was capablanca able to play the way he did.
PS:I have a friend who belives he was a reincarnation of another GM.
from:
http://www.chessgames.com/player/jose_raul_capablanca.html?kpage=61
"...one of the most interesting explainations i've heard of why Capablanca was the best player in the world for so long is one the Jacob Aargaard gives. That is, Capa was the only player of his generation who had a good understanding of weaknesses. His opponents would often make weakening pawn moves and then Capa would exploit them. Perhaps this is why his games look to be so clear. It's because he had a clear plan.
The example Aargaard gives is Bogoljubov vs Capablanca, 1924. Now, if you now even some basic elements of positional chess, you see how ridiculous some of Bogoljubov's moves are. But notice what Capa does, he sees potential dark squared weaknesses on the queen side, so he exchanges off dark squared bishops, he then uses those dark squares to attack the backward pawns on the light squares.
If you keep this in mind, i think the reasons for Capa's superiority over the other players becomes more apparent. It could also explain why he didn't need to study much. He basically had a 'system' that would allow him to beat almost every one. This changed with the new generation who had a greater positional understanding."
Here is the PGN from the Bogoljubov-Capablanca game mentioned in that post:
[Event "New York "]
[Site "New York "]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Bogoljubow Efim"]
[Black "J Capablanca"]
[ECO "D05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "64"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5
5.b3 Nc6 6.O-O Bd6 7.Bb2 O-O 8.Nbd2 Qe7
9.Ne5 cxd4 10.exd4 Ba3 11.Bxa3 Qxa3 12.Ndf3 Bd7
13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Qd2 Rac8 15.c3 a6 16.Ne5 Bb5
17.f3 Bxd3 18.Nxd3 Rc7 19.Rac1 Rfc8 20.Rc2 Ne8
21.Rfc1 Nd6 22.Ne5 Qa5 23.a4 Qb6 24.Nd3 Qxb3
25.Nc5 Qb6 26.Rb2 Qa7 27.Qe1 b6 28.Nd3 Rc4
29.a5 bxa5 30.Nc5 Nb5 31.Re2 Nxd4 32.cxd4 R8xc5 0-1
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellI questioned MotownDave about the use of engine use in the ICCF (he is a member there) and he gave a very nice response. Here it is:
I think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.
I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.
"Hello, I will help try to answer your questions. Yes, in the ICCF engine use is allowed and I am a member. It is not controlled, but among strong players, a stronger player with a computer will beat a weaker player with a computer as often as in unassisted play. It is so impossible to police that they don't try. In fact most computer programs will make weak moves, including Fritz and Shredder. The secret is picking them out! Since everyone has an engine, it is still equal play!"