Jonathan Tait wrote on 12/05/22 at 16:24:17:

Uh oh. Sounds vulnerable to collusion, or just as bad suspicion of collusion.

mattchess wrote on 12/03/22 at 19:43:31:


I tweeted about this...

"Out of the 136 games played (...) 119 were draws." – Except that Bock withdrew, so all his "losses" can be discounted; similarly Neto-Pessoa where Black "resigned" a level position. So out of 119 real results, only *three* were decisive.

Of these, two were one-move blunders (Edwards-Michálek and Schwetlick-Lecroq). Only Osipov-Schwetlick was a win "over the board". Basically Edwards came first because Michálek, who gave him a knight for nothing, only lost one game, whereas Schwetlick lost two. Well done.

(And to the question somebody asked: "Do the humans have any input or is it all down to computers?")

Yes. There's a surprising amount of leeway in most positions, so humans can direct how they want play to go, while engines keep it within the bounds of soundness. But as a real contest between humans it's ultimately futile: if a position is at all sound, Stockfish will defend it.

I thought the Bogo was in pretty good shape in theory, but haven't really kept up.

Quote:


I would be grateful if you could expand on this statement more. Without knowing more, it seems to imply that some openings that might be considered sound will fail if analysis is deep enough. Unless we are talking openings already regarded as weak for all play. But I'll leave it to you to respond to if you are so inclined.

TIA!

Cathexis

The latest cycle just completed.  Jon Edwards is the latest ICCF champion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/crosswords/correspondence-chess.html

https://en.chessbase.com/post/jon-edwards-wins-the-32nd-world-correspondence-cha...

The next cycle is underway.

The NY Times article touches on your question directly:

"Even with such a plan, a majority of correspondence games end in a draw because it is nearly impossible to beat an opponent who has access to the defensive resources of a chess engine. Out of the 136 games played in the 32nd World Correspondence Chess Championship, 119 were draws. What’s more, when games are decisive, this is sometimes because of human error.

Given the high number of draws and the difficulty of winning even a single game, could Mr. Edwards be the last world champion correspondence player? He didn’t seem to think so. “Most outsiders and many players believe that correspondence chess is dying,” he said, “but the best correspondence players don’t believe that.”"

My 2 cents:   

I think the simplest answer is that it will not be "dead" as long as there are people interested in ICCF play.  ICCF appears to still be going strong.  In terms of games played, my database suggests in 2017 there were over 106k games started and in 2020 there were over 100k games and in 2021 there were ~87K.  Will need to see what happens over the next few years.

I personally think there is still a place for the "academia of chess" and the laboratory environment of ICCF play.  I know I still enjoy it.  The games produced continue to influence theory OTB and are discussed in analysis of OTB games for reference.

But the relevancy of the championship to the broader chess community will no doubt continue to be diminished if the draw situation becomes even more extreme in future cycles.  But does that really matter?  If the championship is only of interest to those engaged in ICCF play I am fine with that.  I don't think anyone actively engaged in ICCF has any delusions.  The broader chess community will remain aware of it.  But not follow it closely.  Perhaps not much different than their awareness of TCEC.  It will remain relevant to a niche of those actually interested in ICCF play.