What I hate about Correspondence Chess

Post by **Harvey Williamson** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:27 pm

As many people will know I am a correspondence IM. I have just got a 2nd Senior IM norm with the ICCF.

I have been playing in a Semi Final for the World Correspondence Chess Championship. It looks like I will finish 2nd in this and hope to progress to the Candidates sectiom.

What is annoying me is the way some players use the time control of 10 moves in 50 days. You will not receive a move from some players until a few days before the time control and then they will make just enough moves quickly and then vanish again.

here is 1 game I am currently playing:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c4 f5 14.O-O O-O 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Kh8 19.Bxe4 Rfe8 20.Bd3 Qxe1 21.f6 Bh6 22.Qh5 Qd2 23.Qf5 Be4 24.Bxe4 Rxe4 25.Qxe4 Qxb2 26.Re1 Bf8 27.Nc2 Qxa2 28.cxb5 axb5 29.h4 Qa8 30.Qg4 Re8 31.Rb1 Qc6 32.Nd4 Qe4 33.Qxe4 Rxe4 34.Nxb5 Rf4 35.Nc7 Rxf6 36.Rb8 Kg8 37.Nd5 Re6 38.f4 Kg7 39.h5 Be7 40.g3 f5 41.Kg2 Bf6 42.Rb7+ Kf8 43.Kf3 Bd4 44.Rxh7 Bg7 45.h6 Bd4 46.Kg2 Bc5 47.g4 fxg4 48.f5 Re1 49.Nf4 Rg1+ 50.Kh2 g3+ 51.Kh3 Bd4 52.Rc7 Ke8 53.h7 Be5 54.Ra7 d5 55.Ra8+ Kd7 56.Ng6 Bd4 57.Ra4 Bc3 58.Ra3 Bd4 59.Ra6 Kc7 60.Nh4 g2 61.Nf3 Ra1 62.Rxa1 Bxa1 63.Kxg2 Kd6 64.Nh4 Bf6 65.Ng6 Bg7 66.Kf3 d4 67.h8=Q Bxh8 68.Nxh8 Ke5 69.Kg4 d3 70.Nf7+ Kd5 71.Kf3 d2 72.Ke2 d1=Q+ 73.Kxd1 Ke4 74.Nh6 Ke5 75.Kc2 Kf6 76.Kd3 Kg5 77.Ke4 Kxh6 78.Ke5 Kg7 79.Ke6 Kf8 80.Kf6 Ke8 81.Kg7

This is a clear win for me but it could take another 100 days to finish. My opponent just played the last 10 moves in a couple of days to make the time control and I suspect will now vanish for most of the next 50 days. I would just resign in his position.

[fen]4k3/6K1/8/5P2/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 81[/fen]

not sure this link will work for non iccf members http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCross ... x?id=21908

RadioSmall · Post by **RadioSmall** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm

The link does not work
Speaking of Correspondence Chess Harvey: is the general opinion today in 2011 that Commercial Programs are stronger the the Human World Correspondence Chess Champion ( That is a Commercial Program playing at correspondence time controls ) . What would be the strength of a good Dedicated chess computer (say 2000 Elo at tournament ) at correspondence time controls in your opinion?? ( I hope your opponent resigns this game!)

Post by **Harvey Williamson** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:06 pm

RadioSmall wrote:The link does not work
Speaking of Correspondence Chess Harvey: is the general opinion today in 2011 that Commercial Programs are stronger the the Human World Correspondence Chess Champion ( That is a Commercial Program playing at correspondence time controls ) . What would be the strength of a good Dedicated chess computer (say 2000 Elo at tournament ) at correspondence time controls in your opinion?? ( I hope your opponent resigns this game!)

I think a strong corr. player can still get draws v the engines as SIM David Overton proved in a match on this forum where he used no computer help.

If at corr. time controls an engine was just left on infinite analysis I suspect the corr. World champ would have a chance. Against a skilled centaur I am not so sure.

red_potatoes · Post by **red_potatoes** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:46 am

Link works for me...

Your complaint reminds me of an article I read about Edward Duliba (US correspondence chess GM) in the May 2010 issue of Chess Life:

"His tournament strategy is to play as slowly as legally allowable in the opening and first half of the middlegame. Many games of the other competitors will finish quickly and players will sort their tournament positions out. When players find that they are not in competition, frequently their quality of play diminishes."

Duliba's strategy didn't appeal to me then, and it still doesn't appeal to me now. Maybe correspondence time controls need to be shortened, as has happened for OTB chess?

Bryan Whitby · Post by **Bryan Whitby** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:59 pm

Hi Harvey
No losses and a win pending, very well done!
I bet the German you are playing is from the old Eastern block?
When I played against them you where lucky if you got a move a month. There was a story that a senior OTB grandmaster was planted by the Soviet government in the postal office in Moscow. He would intercept Soviet players moves who where playing in the World Championships and if their move wasn't the strongest, he would return the move to them and tell them that the move wasn't good enough!!

Bryan

Dr.Wael Deeb · Post by **Dr.Wael Deeb** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:47 pm

Hi Harvey,
The guy should have the decency and resign....all he's doing now is trying his best to annoy you....pathetic as it could be....
Dr.D

Post by **Steve B** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:40 am

The more things change the more they stay the same i guess

i played in a few USCF Golden Knights correspondence tournaments back in the late 70's
these were the days before there were any chess computers
we used post cards back then

i remember one game where i was accused of cheating..
i was in a pretty bad position but i found a drawing resource
in this game i just so happen to use a red pen to make each reply and i would write the reply in less then the best handwriting
in the move that saved the game i used a blue or black pen..dont remember exactly ..and i clearly and neatly in BOLD letters wrote my move
my opponent clearly unhappy that i saved the game .complained to the tournament officials that my reply was not made by me but by someone else as the pen i used was different and my handwriting was different!
neither of us wanted to continue the game as we had lost respect for each other
the arbiters adjudicated the game a draw..which it was

chess theory has evolved over the past 30 years and of course the advent of PC engines has changed the face of correspondence play..
Human nature however ...

Never Changes Regards
Steve

Dr.Wael Deeb · Post by **Dr.Wael Deeb** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:15 am

Steve B wrote:The more things change the more they stay the same i guess

i played in a few USCF Golden Knights correspondence tournaments back in the late 70's
these were the days before there were any chess computers
we used post cards back then

i remember one game where i was accused of cheating..
i was in a pretty bad position but i found a drawing resource
in this game i just so happen to use a red pen to make each reply and i would wrote the reply in less then the best handwriting
in the move that saved the game i used a blue or black pen..dont remember exactly ..and i clearly and neatly in BOLD letters wrote my move
my opponent clearly unhappy that i saved the game .complained to the tournament officials that my reply was not made by me but by someone else as the pen i used was different and my handwriting was different!
neither of us wanted to continue the game as we had lost respect for each other
the arbiters adjudicated the game a draw..which it was

chess theory has evolved over the past 30 years and of course the advent of PC engines has changed the face of correspondence play..
Human nature however ...

Never Changes Regards
Steve

True Steve....

IvenGO · Post by **IvenGO** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:23 pm

The same shit happens in "live"-chess time after time too

Opponent lost bishop/knight but didnt continue resistance, didnt resigned - just walked round the torney's playing hall for an hour.

Monsieur Plastique · Post by **Monsieur Plastique** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:01 am

The last correspondence game I ever played clearly showed computer cheating was here to stay so I was out of the hobby. I had completely outplayed my opponent and got to a late middlegame a whole piece ahead. But given these were under 1600 ELO correspondence games, I did not honestly expect a resignation.

Over the next 20 moves, however, my "opponent" suddendly increased in ELO playing strength by about 900 points, and I ended up losing the game. I have absolutely zero doubt that once my opponent had lost the piece, they substituted a computer from thereon. The playing style was totally different, tactically flawless and quite overpowering for someone of my strength. Although this occured in the mid nineties, by then PC programs were already around 800 ELO stronger than me at standard time controls and obviously stronger yet again when doing long term analysis (versus a human whose "concentration" cannot be maintained or sustained at the same level in the same way).

SirDave · Post by **SirDave** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:58 pm

It's unfortunate that computer-assist has intruded on the enjoyment of various brain/puzzle games in addition to chess. For instance, one can never be sure that an internet Scrabble opponent isn't using a computer-based word finder.

Computer-assist has even muddied the morality waters as to what some people view as unfair computer assist. Initially, when the Sudoku craze started in 2005, human puzzle-solving was the norm, but then some talented programmers created a number of very powerful computer solvers. Subsequently, when human solvers were challenged to solve so-called 'unsolvable' puzzles, one individual submitted his computer solver solutions as 'my solutions'. One programmer put it more bluntly: Since he had programmed the computer solver, its solutions were the same as if he had solved them.

Which raises the question: When one uses a chess engine to overwhelm another player over the internet, does he go to bed at night thinking that he's really hot stuff?

Post by **Harvey Williamson** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:41 pm

It is now mate in 1 and he has just taken the maximum leave that he can. Kind of funny but when i win it will get me to the next stage of the World Championship.

2 days ago I got my final ICCF Senior International Master norm so am very happy with that

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:08 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:2 days ago I got my final ICCF Senior International Master norm so am very happy with that

Congratulations.

Michael Blake · Post by **Michael Blake** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:30 pm

Huge congratulations on the SIM title Harvey, should be a great occasion when you get handed the award. Well done!

Kind Regards,
Mickey

Post by **Harvey Williamson** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:33 pm

Michael Blake wrote:Huge congratulations on the SIM title Harvey, should be a great occasion when you get handed the award. Well done!

Kind Regards,
Mickey

Many thanks Michael. I finally won the game that started this thread and have qualified for the candidates.

HIARCS Chess Forums

What I hate about Correspondence Chess

What I hate about Correspondence Chess

Re: What I hate about Correspondence Chess