kylemeister wrote on 01/05/08 at 21:57:31:


Yeah, I think there is a 100-200 point gap between CC ratings and OTB ratings among USCF players who do both, the CC ratings being higher.   But I don't think that this supports the claim that Smyslov Fan was trying to make.

Markovich wrote on 01/05/08 at 21:14:09:


You are essentially trying to goad me into naming names, in essence simply to satisfy some sense of curiosity you have, but I do not think that in the long run any good can come of doing so. If you think that this invalidates my arguments then so be it. 

My question for you is if I were to name the names of these chess imposters that are kidding themselves, how will this impact your enjoyment of Correspondence play one way or the other. You have already stated that you do not care what others think about CC chess or those who play it, yet the tenor of your posts here suggests otherwise.

Mark if you enjoy CC play and as you contend the proverbial search for chess truth and all that, then that's very noble indeed. The funny thing is that many OTB players claim to be doing exactly the same thing but without the competitive crutches of using engines etc. during actual play. It is this use and dependence upon such aids to produce a decent game that invalidate any legitimate claim to chess mastery by a CC player, unless of course he can accomplish the same OTB unaided. Are you disputing this, and if the answer is no, then what exactly does Correspondence Chess Master mean in relation to chess skill?

While you ponder the above question and rather than reiterate all my reservations to you about competitive Correspondence Chess and the way it is conducted, I will simply wish you god speed and good luck in your future CC exploits.

Toppy  

Good grief, isn't this discussion ever going to die out?  It is amazingly weak, what with all the strong generalizations about CC we see here from people who've never played it, and silly, pejorative characterizations of CC players that appear to be founded on bald conjecture.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/05/08 at 17:17:09:


I can hardly dispute that this happened, but in general, there are quite a few people who play at the master level in both forms of chess.  In fact, I don't know many CC players who don't play chess OTB, and there are about as many approaches to the game among them as there are among any other subset of players.   

It amazes me that you encountered "several" CC masters who all turned out to be weak players. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/05/08 at 17:17:09:


For the same reason, most of these generalizations are quite fanciful, absurd even.   You have found?  I just have to laugh at that because, I mean, how many CC players have you played?  Were you taking notes?  What, did you write in your diary, "Ho-hum, played another hopelessly defensive and undynamic CC player today?"

 
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/05/08 at 17:17:09:


What??  This is blather.  There are bizillions of CC games with do-or-die attacks.  CC is famous for sharp-edged play, for crying out loud.

I fully agree that it takes different skill sets to play CC and OTB, but there are a lot of people who have both.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/05/08 at 17:17:09:


Really, what are you smoking?  I can only marvel that someone with no CC experience or evident acquaintance with CC practice would come here with such bizarre generalizations.  Care to substantiate these claims with anything?  Frankly, it all sounds suspiciously made-up.

If any of these generalizations were true, don't you think they would be more widely accepted?  I suggest you go to the forum at correspondencechess.com and post these comments, and see what kind of answers you get. 

I've played a few CC players OTB myself, but none of this ever appeared to me, nor does it accord with my experience as I look back.

@TopNotch:  Are you ever going to substantiate any of your sweeping generalizations here, to which I have pointed?  Or are you just going to go on making lofty claims based on zero experience?

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/05/08 at 17:17:09:


I remember listening to live commentary by GM Roman Dznidzichashvili on the ICC, when some one typed in to ask Roman what was the difference between an IM and a GM, as they had found it impossible to tell the difference in strength from participating against them in Simuls.

Roman's poignant response spontaneuosly made me erupt in fits of laughter. He said half jokingly that the difference was that all IM's want to become GM's but he had never met a GM that wanted to become an IM. 

So to Smyslov_Fan I would say that while to the layman chess titles may not command much respect, though this is debatable, among chess players such titles are highly respected and coveted, the OTB ones at least. In fact it is the pressence of titled players and the possibility to play against and learn from them, that is one of the biggest selling points in favor of dedicated Chess Servers, and is the reason why IM's and GM's are granted free accounts to play on them.

Smyslov_Fan wrote:  The CC player often makes strange moves in otb chess that just feel out of place.  This is probably due to the way the CC player chooses moves in correspondence chess.  The difference between the time controls really does seem to create different skill sets for solving problems.

The above quote is too overly euphemistic for my tastes and the strange moves referred to are because they are mostly computer generated and as we know Human thought prcess and the way comps decide on moves are vastly different. This is what I meant about comps not helping to devlop chess skills, they produce moves after much number crunching, but this does not help us humans in our own decision making ability at the board, it only serves in many cases to help us come to the board with a bit more home analysis. 

Once home analysis has been exhausted one must learn how to make effective unaided decisions at the board, and these kind of higher order thinking skills cannot be learnt from Fritz or Rybka. I hope that answers antillian's question satisfactorily as I don't think that I would be able to clarify it any better without taking up a huge amount of space. Moreover if I took the time and space neccesary to do so, those who insist on their point of view would just ignore it anyway or quibble over some miniscule irrelevant point in an attempt to detract from the big picture.

One of the things that I particularly enjoy about chess is that often a lot of the hypocrsiy and posturing that players indulge in off the board is often exposed as Bull**** over it. 

The bottom line is this, the only real way to improve and know how good a chessplayer you really are is to play one on one, mano y mano, unaided, no excuses, no talk of bad memory or bad nerves or bad karma or bad luck or any such convenient crutch.

I have no issue with CC play, as I fully understand and appreciate that for whatever reason it maybe neccessary to play and enjoy chess in this form. Still I find Correspondence titles that suggest chess mastery to be a bit of an oxymoron, especially considering the context in which it is played.

Toppy     

Just thought I would add my 2 cents worth to this very intense debate.  I personally do believe there is a lot of  value in correspondence chess in improving OTB skills. I speak from my own personal experience. 

Having played chess as a kid, when I entered the real world, like many I drifted away from competitive chess. In fact, I took a 10 year break from any kind of chess, not even looking at a chess book.  When I made a decision to return to competitive chess, I was faced with the dilemma of not having any real avenues to practice my skills. There were no local active clubs or chess players near me.  So I turned to server based correspondence chess to tune my skills.

However, I approached it just as if it was otb chess. I did not move pieces, I did not use engines, books or databases. I analyzed the position just as if i was playing otb chess. The only difference was that if i was unsure, I took a break and came back the next day. My correspondence rating was not that impressive. But I did not care since I saw correspondence chess as a means to an end and not an end in itself.  When the next year, i made my return to otb competition, I was quite successful and achieved my first published FIDE rating of 2150. I attribute my success to my correspondence chess training method. 

I played strictly otb chess for about two years with mixed success and eventually stopped again because of work and studies. However recently, I have taken back up correspondences chess again as a training device with the intention of returning to otb chess. I must say though, that i got badly trounced in my first tournament using my previous methods. I don't mind being beaten, but the problem is that you get beat, you lose rating points and then u have to compete with lower rated players which is not as valuable an experience. So i have started to use some aids, mainly books and engine for blunder checking. I personally think it is helping me quite a bit. But time will tell, when I make my return to otb chess later this year.

drkodos wrote on 01/03/08 at 21:31:06:


The second point is not in dispute.  As to the first, "means anything" is a loaded expression, particularly when qualified by "outside the world of..."  Does being a Master Bass Fisherman mean anything, for example, outside the world of bass fishing?  But I think most reasonable people will concede there there is some sort of intellectual achievement that is signified by a CC title.  At any rate, though I'm a player of reasonable OTB strength and with a full range of other resources available to me, I haven't been able to obtain one.  So personally, I respect those who have.

I might also suggest that you try to get yourself a CC-IM title. Then come back and tell us all how trivially easy it was.  That would be more convincing than mere words.  I must admit that in that case, I would say, "Congratulations, you're a damn fine CC player!"

TopNotch wrote on 01/03/08 at 02:46:15:


This "observation" didn't ring true for me, either.  There are certainly plenty of cc players who lean very heavily on their machines and don't really look at the board.  But there are also plenty of players who don't use or don't have access to the kind of computer that would make an iota of difference to their playing strength (though this, too, is on the way out, of course).  In between, there are a number of players who like moving the pieces around the board and will lean on a chess engine to blunder check and help solidify the foundations of a strategic plan.  My sense in playing correspondence chess is that this final group is probably as large as the first group that TN is deriding.  And they provide for some wonderfully convivial chess games, with friendly banter thrown in for good measure.  More to the point, of course, is that this third group is learning and improving.  I have a very friendly opponent who I have played several times, and he claims that while he turns to a computer for help, he never plays its recommendations without first sitting down to work out why that move is (apparently) the strongest.

TN's not-so-carefully "considered opinion" is also tantamount to suggesting that computers don't help us with chess improvement at all.  I would be the first to suggest that it is unlikely that these machines are the best way to learn and improve, but they aren't helpful at all?

TopNotch wrote on 01/03/08 at 02:46:15:


TopNotch, you have made two quite remarkable claims, purportedly based upon your experience.  They are, "I have found that many who practise [CC] often sneakily try to favorably compare their rating strength with those of OTB players," and "...experience has shown me that many who initially take up CC do so primarily due to a lack of success at OTB play."

I have repeatedly asked you to share whatever in your actual experience would justify these claims.  You haven't done so, and given the sweeping breadth of these remarks, as well as their pejorative implications for CC players in general, I think it is incumbent upon you to do so.  Either that, or admit that the foundation of these assertions is entirely conjectural.  Will you please finally answer on these points?

Now here is a further point upon which you offer yourself as an authority:

"It is my considered opinion that Correspondence Chess when aided by computer engines and the rest of it, does not in anyway, shape or form improve chess skills."

Since you are have never engaged in this particular pursuit, with what authority could you possibly speak?  I would be interested to hear the opinion of a CC player on this, but I can't see what value the opinion of a non-CC player would be.  I believe I am correct in asserting that I have considerably more experience with CC than you do, and I will attest that nothing in my experience has suggested either this or the other two of your claims.  But since these claims are yours, I'm not the one with the burden of proof.

I am at a loss to evaluate the bald opinions of a purported expert who comes here anonymously and reveals essentially nothing about his own chess strength or experience.  I admit, I take you to be a pretty strong player, quite probably (though I am not completely sure) a stronger player than I am.  Though it is fair to say that most of your posts don't actually have much to do with the 64 squares, those that do seem to reveal real talent.  Nevertheless, all this is merely my supposition.  For all I know, you could be a kid somewhere with a fast computer and big mouth.  Within limits, I am willing to accept the pontifications of a known IM or a GM; I have less tolerance for those of a completely anonymous person -- particularly concerning aspects of chess where he admits to having precisely no experience.  And I find it somewhat ironic that someone who doesn't share his own playing strength purports to judge who is "legitimately strong."

Actually the notion of "legitimately strong" is revolting to me; every chess player is worthy, and worth listening to on some level.  But when authoritative opinion is being offered, it is difficult to accept without knowing the playing strength and the experience of the person offering it.

Finally, you say:

TopNotch wrote on 01/03/08 at 02:46:15:


Granted your hypothesis arguendo, the conclusion remains your opinion, something which no one here would deny you.  I submit, however, that it is rather unlikely to influence the future of the CC game.