I play on ICCF, and I think the claims made in #16 & #20 are way off, and likely based on no experience. The vast majority of people do what is mentioned in #15 all the time, and they still regularly lose games (if you are experienced enough you can tell who's doing this and with what engine). You guys are far too complimentary towards chess engines - they are very powerful tools to be sure, and they do remove a lot (notice I didn't say 100%) of the tactical blunders from the game, but they certainly don't "understand" chess. At least for a while, ICCF continues to be (for me) an interesting exercise, a different way of playing chess.
And I don't totally understand the notion that people who barely know the rules can compete with the best. Just like on our site, do you expect even a 1600 to compete with a 2600? No, it'd be an absolute bloodbath. So what would make you think a 1600 ICCF can compete with a 2600 ICCF? Perhaps he might be able to squeak out an odd draw every now and then, but again, there's a 1000 point rating gap between them for a mathematical reason!
LM TonyRo. I have 2 curious questions.
1. Do you use computers in your playing?
2. If yes, how often do you chose a move different from the moves suggested by your computers?
1. On ICCF, yes.
2. I dunno, it's a good question, but a poorly formed one perhaps. Excluding opening moves where a computer isn't used at all, moves using an endgame tablebase, and obvious captures and recaptures, I'd have to look. But again, suggested by which engine after how much time and analysis, etc? Engines flip flop all the time, different engines have different ideas and evaluations, etc. Without doing the math, I'd guess that I have an equal number of moments where I go "Wow, that's a great idea I never would have thought of!" and "Wow, Stockfish wants me to play THAT hideous move, and thinks it's THAT good!?"
Again, people think it's just two guys throwing out computer moves at each other, but if that was the case, you'd have very little rating stratification. The 2600's are definitely doing something better than the 2000's, and it's certainly not just hardware, software, etc. There are games I've likely invested 80-100 hours in by the time they're over.
It is all about money. Software makers, hardware makers, super computer (aka cluster) makers, database makers ... everyone makes money and wants to make more. This is why they killed pure human chess. You can't ban them, you can't catch them, even you can't know them. They own everything in authority. We'll see a new correspondence world champion will be a oil-rich sheikh from Arabian peninsula. Who wants to bet me on this?
You can change the oil-rich sheik metaphor to drug lord from South America or with anyone with tons of money.
Read Valery Salov interview taken from 2009.
In this sense chess is a reflection of that which takes place in other fields of human activities. The creative element is less and less present in the world! Chess reached this point 20 years ago. The best chess was produced long ago. Nowadays the computer dictates how chess preparation develops. Players have become spectators.
In my opinion, anyone who uses an engine while playing the game is a cheat. Simples.
Use it in preparation, in post game analysis...
but I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I used an engine.
#16 if you just let the computer make the moves for you then you would be a low rated with the guys who cant get past depth 8.
#26 you are rated 1400 blitz... I would be able to beat you even if you were using the latest stockfish and I was on a really old version.
#27 what an idiot. I've played 7 games at blitz. Try playing 0+1, 1+0 or 1/2+0 and see how near YOU've ever been to 2000. You're obviously an engine expert... shame about your ability at chess.
Had I a supercomputer with Stockfish installed on it, I would be Chess God. And i wouldn't even have to know how exactly the horsie jumps. ;-)
My point is: The game loses its point when you compromise the human factor of it, that is by replacing biological intelligence with artificial one. Many people find enjoyment in this sort of technological contest, but I think it's as boring to watch as two forklifts in an arm wrestling match.
You're wrong rise_UIED, absolutely wrong! :)
if Magnus Carlsen played an engine assisted game versus Stockfish he would win at a rate better than he wins vs Nakamura.
You probably don't even know who those people are because are a chess NUB... engine chess takes talent, and skills that regular chess don't tap into.