- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
01 May 06
I do wonder if Correspondence GMs get a deeper understanding since they spend weeks on a single position which has to uncover more of the positional truth than an OTB master spending say 2-10 mins a move. However the OTB GM will go through more moves and see more positions. Its not a question of which one would win in a game but more of a question of do correspondence players understand chess better than OTB players. The correspondence GM moves will contain less errors so he certainly plays more precise chess but does that equate to a deeper understanding in the long run.
01 May 06
Originally posted by BedlamWell of course "in the long run" is the key. Corr. players have much more time. An OTB top GM I think could play better than the corr GM
I do wonder if Correspondence GMs get a deeper understanding since they spend weeks on a single position which has to uncover more of the positional truth than an OTB master spending say 2-10 mins a move. However the OTB GM will go through more moves and see more positions. Its not a question of which one would win in a game but more of a question of do cor ...[text shortened]... rtainly plays more precise chess but does that equate to a deeper understanding in the long run.
if he set his mind to it. Are there any examples of OTB GM's playing Corr GM's?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
01 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseIts not so much about play since they both have their special areas with regards to time, its about the game chess in its pure form. Do correspondence players have a better understanding of chess because they make stronger moves, better understood moves more often than OTB players do.
Well of course "in the long run" is the key. Corr. players have much more time. An OTB top GM I think could play better than the corr GM
if he set his mind to it. Are there any examples of OTB GM's playing Corr GM's?
01 May 06
Originally posted by BedlamI think there is a key difference between *having* a better understanding as opposed to playing in way which *suggests* a better understanding. For example, computers play in a way which often suggests a better understanding than they actually have. i.e brute force can sometimes obtain the same effect as upfront understanding.
Do you think correspondence Grandmasters/players in general have a deeper understanding of chess than OTB Grandmasters/players in general, or vice versa?
If we give an OTB and a correspondence GM a position to analyse in a relatively short time (e.g. 3 mins), then the OTB GM is going to do better. If we then start extending the time allowed for analysis, then the extra time gives more possibility of gaining an understanding (as opposed to having).
It’s a bit like having a king and 8 bishops (all on the same colour) versus a king. I immediately understand it’s drawn, but my PC doesn’t. However, give my PC enough time and it can gain the same insight and appear to understand.
So, in short, I think top OTB GMs understand chess better than top correspondence GMs.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
01 May 06
Originally posted by KnightloreBerliner did dominate the correspondence championships one year, but his OTB performance was never even reached the top five in the USA. So I would rank OTB over Correspondence in regards to understanding chess.
When thinking of buying The System by Hans Berliner (one time corr world champ) I read Jeremy Silman's review of the book (fyi no review I've read has been good). Silman categorically stated that corr players understanding was well below that of OTB GMs but did not explain why. I must admit when people talk of the real chess geniuses they talk of Fische ...[text shortened]... tioned above, they do all that before the games, just as much as corr players do during them