trw wrote on 09/05/17 at 18:16:56:


In my resume you should add that i have a Masters at Computer Engineering and that in the 4 years i am playing corr chess (but with very few games/year as you already wrote above) i have lost only one game (from which i learnt a lot) and my rating is climbing and climbing and in the two tournaments you mentioned my performance was much higher. Also, i am winning my first IM norm now and hopefully in the second tournament i will my second one (the tournament started really well). 

I think that calling someone a "bad author" and a "beginner at corr chess" just like that is indeed harsh. Could you find something in my writtings that is bad and something in my corr games which is amateurisch? Did you read the chapter in "Thinking Inside the Box" anyway before criticizing it? Although, to be fair, this chapter was not intended to be written for experienced corr players like you in the first place. 

Giving this a bump. I remain interested. I’ve spent the last few weeks revising my opening repertoire to prepare for a series of tournaments this winter. I’m starting to like the new plan. As a few people mentioned above, I believe that the secret to cc success comes from finding lines that engines are still prone to misevaluate, and doing the kind of research to identify how to exploit the often minor misreads. As a result, I’ve been looking at slightly offbeat deviations from mainstream theory (in order to get my opponent out of book early) and create imbalances in closed or semi-open positions.

But it’s not just about engine power. My past experience says that I won more games where the theory was sound but not over-developed. I won a lot of games with the Catalan, for example, about ten years ago, before the crush of new books made it difficult to get players into positions I knew better. In some sense, good cc involves finding opening fashions before the GMs do. 

I already have Robin Smith's book but I hadn't read it thoroughly yet! Thanks for the tip!

TN wrote on 09/06/17 at 05:02:37:



The book I would recommend is old but it is written by a correspondence IM Robin Smith: Modern Chess Analysis. It is a good foundational work that you can probably build on fairly easily by asking other strong corr players what has changed. In this regard, the book is usually $5 in most clearance stores. I am in the process of rereading this myself.

brabo wrote on 09/06/17 at 07:50:31:



True but my offer here was to share my knowledge openly as well.

bragesjo wrote on 09/06/17 at 08:03:18:



As long as you are enjoying what you do that is all that matters.

tipau wrote on 09/06/17 at 12:08:44:


I made a very nice eloquent post asking those who were posting off topic like yourself to stop. So please stop. In fact several people suggested upgrading my hardware one directly so and one indirectly. I did not respond to them because I like their posts in general and have enjoyed them for years. I know you are baiting me as you are a troll yourself nevertheless the fact remains do not ever recommend a book to a person without the ability to say why you are recommending the book. It will *never* go over well in my experience. My first post was to ask why such a book was recommended and the response was truly appalling. Now leave this thread as the title clearly mentions correspondence and your post has nothing to do with the topic.


ArKheiN wrote on 09/06/17 at 14:00:29:


Thank you very much for your lovely post. You are the first person to take this thread seriously and I thank you for that at the very least. I understand you are short of time but I will appreciate your response whenever you find the time. If you ever want to partner in the future, I would be most gracious to structure any arrangement that would work towards furthering both of our goals. I agree with most of what you say in this regard I have added the KID to my repertoire nearly 5 years ago for this reason. I would say 50% of my wins come understanding something deep the engine is unable to comprehend. Maybe 10% of my wins come from brute force hardware. I think 20% of my wins come from a much greater understanding of opening theory. I do keep my game load light and I haven't lost a game in 4 years but I find it harder and harder to win and even harder to gain rating points.

ErictheRed wrote on 09/06/17 at 14:48:46:


No, it was not you. I specifically didn't quote the people saying it because frankly I like them and frankly its off topic and this thread has already seen too much off topic BS. I had no idea I was starting such a controversial topic. Indeed, if I knew correspondence players were hated this much then I would never have returned from my silent lurking.

trw, I know I still have to respond in the other thread, I am lacking time at the moment but I will try.

About this post, like you I am trying to become a CC GM. I got 2530+ from less than 40 ICCF's game and I have played many games before in another website where I am 24XX there. I suppose you mean ICCF GM too? 

I don't know your hardware but I think it has to be quite good to reach the best level. That doesn't mean it has to be too expensive and the best. 

Doing training games is difficult because it takes much time. Or you can do "advanced chess" games as a training but you can be a decent corr player and a mediocre "centaur" player (the opposite is true too). Still, that way of training can be interesting to test your repertoire and learn more about computer's evaluations and it's weaknesses. So it's better to play with only one engine but knowing it well that playing with the best 3 engines randomly or divising the time of analysis by 3. I imagine some of the best corr players have more than 1 PC running at the same time, maybe even 2 or more on the same position with different engines, but that's not my case. My PC is strong, but I analyse 1 position for a long time until I switch for another one. It seems it works for me to get a GM ELO. The fact that I am a quite good OTB player helps a lot to evaluate the lines of the engine, so I don't always play the first engine move, and that's important. I recommand you to play your games until almost the dead draw. I have beaten many 2100-2250 on ICCF by just trying to search for pressure and avoiding simplifications. With Black I suggest to play the KID if you try to win as Black, but you improve the risk of losing as well. Ne8 in the Bayonnet is typically in that idea. I think that 33% of my wins are due to my own touch in the move selection in the middle-game or endings. Maybe 33% of my wins because of my opening choice or the bad opening choice of my opponent. The other 33% are because my brute computer analysis was clearly stronger than my opponent's one. You have to avoid long and forced opening variations if you try to win, and try umbalanced positions that are not well analysed yet, but it takes risks for you too. Finally, to get a strong ELO, an idea is to try to never lose, to win as White as much as you can, and try to win as Black sometimes but with calculated risks. I am sometimes in bad position because of a bad analysis but I compensate with a very stuborn defense, looking into some kind of fortress/simplifications in the ending when I can. With that technique I lost almost 0 game the last 2-3 years. Last recommandation, don't play a number of game at the same time you can't handle well

The key to success in Correspondence Chess is to find lines where computer evaluates as equal but where opponents computer lines play involves some ugly looking moves. I lack ambition and only plays thematical tournaments and my best place is this far is 2nd place and have no corr rating so dont take this to serioes

I wrote one post with poor words. This does not make me a troll. I am also a moderator and member of this forum for almost 10 years myself. Nevertheless, calling on a much much stronger corr player to study a beginner's games based on a recommendation in which the poster refused to elaborate is pretty much trolling. It is like telling a GM to make sure he looks at the World Amateur's games. 

I was looking for partners and instead I got a shitty book recommendation, disdain for the type of competition I like to play and advice to upgrade my hardware ( ). Honestly, disgusting.  I guess at the end of the day I thought a lot more of this group and its member. I remember Markovich making a thread not so dissimilar to this one years ago and it lead to me working on analyze an opening I didn't even play with him for years.

Anyways, this thread is clearly not helpful and no one is interested in the topic so I will ask it be locked and forgotten.