Engine vs Strong Correspondence player

Greenpawn34 brought up the subject of the deep blue program while on the subject of Garry Kasparov. I was wondering, would anyone here care to speculate on the outcome of deep blue vs a recent ICCF champion under correspondence time controls. With an average of 3 days to ponder a move, the human would be able to find some very strong moves, and eliminate many of the mistakes that OTB players make because of shorter time controls they must play under. Who knows, maybe the machines are not the stronger players after all.

You mean have the ICCF champ play a magically resurrected Deep Blue running on 1996 technology? I think it would win. You'd still need a world class GM to be competitive with it in my opinion.

There was a article in chess a while ago. Positions where the computers were not coming up with the best moves. Trouble is these positions exist but don't do most of us much good!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Hi Mchill,

Every now and then they conduct such experiments v strong players
over at chessgames.com. where they challenge a GM and are allowed
to use computers. They call themselves 'The World.'

One I saw but refused to take part in was 'Them and their engines' v Simon
Williams.which ran from September 2013 to January 2014 The moves
were ...[text shortened]... ger GM, and congrats to our team!."

'our team' consisted of every computer under the sun.[/b]

Those people are the worst,
I see them all the time in stream chats while watching live GM tournaments...

They all think they're smart,
being super eager to pounce on every "horrendous blunder"
which they claim was SO easy to see, even they could see it.

Something like:
"How could Magnus be so stupid, 'x' move was OBVIOUSLY winning"
and then nearly all of them quote what stockfish is saying.

To these guys, a -0.5 centipawn loss on a move is basically throwing the game away!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Hi Mchill,

Every now and then they conduct such experiments v strong players
over at chessgames.com. where they challenge a GM and are allowed
to use computers. They call themselves 'The World.'

One I saw but refused to take part in was 'Them and their engines' v Simon
Williams.which ran from September 2013 to January 2014 The moves
were ...[text shortened]... ger GM, and congrats to our team!."

'our team' consisted of every computer under the sun.[/b]

Sorry folks, please allow me to clarify here: I was thinking in terms of 1 (one) ICCF world champion vs 1 (one) computer program (not necessarily deep blue) in a match under correspondence time controls. I think the human would stand a slightly better chance than the OTB player under the faster OTB time controls. No voting involved.

The human would have a better chance but I cannot see it happening.
It would take too long, the public would lose interest and asking some top player
to take 4 months out, well you would need to pay them well.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The human would have a better chance but I cannot see it happening.
It would take too long, the public would lose interest and asking some top player
to take 4 months out, well you would need to pay them well.

Yes, it would take a long time. Too bad though. I would very much like to see a sweaty little band of computer programmers, and their over hyped pile of software packing for home in humiliation after getting roundly hammered by a strong correspondence player. It's a pity people have such short attention spans.

Originally posted by mchill
Sorry folks, please allow me to clarify here: I was thinking in terms of 1 (one) ICCF world champion vs 1 (one) computer program (not necessarily deep blue) in a match under correspondence time controls. I think the human would stand a slightly better chance than the OTB player under the faster OTB time controls. No voting involved.

I agree that a strong correspondence player would have a better chance against AI chess than an OTB player. Two reasons: OTB time controls favor AI, and the multitude of opening variations which are programmed into AI cannot be memorized by even the best OTB players. Allowing a human player access to books and data bases, and correspondence time limits, levels the playing field. AI chess is essentially a consortium of GMs playing by proxy. No one player would consent to playing against a roomful GMs consulting with months of preparation, while the lone player had only 90 minutes on his clock.