Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI think top level corr. Chess players would beat top level OTB chess players if they played corr. But if they played OTB then the too level GM would win.... Correspondance chess in the higher levels is different... The corr games are obviously to a higher standard and someone inexperienced in correspondance even a 2600+ GM would probably lose... But I don't know if weyerstrass is top level so I can't say how he would handle a 2600+ GM.
Well weyerstrass could probably handle a 2600 in correspondance, he might well lose and draw some games but I am sure he would be capable of winning from time to time.
In over the board, I would imagine the super gm would win most of the time.
Originally posted by tomtom232What about Paul Keres? He played corr. chess his whole life. He was one of the best in the world in either setting.
I think top level corr. Chess players would beat top level OTB chess players if they played corr. But if they played OTB then the too level GM would win.... Correspondance chess in the higher levels is different... The corr games are obviously to a higher standard and someone inexperienced in correspondance even a 2600+ GM would probably lose... But I don't know if weyerstrass is top level so I can't say how he would handle a 2600+ GM.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232I really doubt that. I don't think being very good at correspondence chess (I mean ICCF, where computers are allowed) means being good at chess. I have now the impression that most of them are actually not very good at all, they only have a good understanding of the openings and analysing with computers.
I think top level corr. Chess players would beat top level OTB chess players if they played corr. But if they played OTB then the too level GM would win.... Correspondance chess in the higher levels is different... The corr games are obviously to a higher standard and someone inexperienced in correspondance even a 2600+ GM would probably lose... But I don't know if weyerstrass is top level so I can't say how he would handle a 2600+ GM.
and so few grandmasters have played cc till now, so we kind of lack statistical information .but they are actually very good at analyzing with computers, so I think any non-titled otb player would have no chances against GMs in CC.
also, I've been watching lecture videos by many IMs, and the fact they are so really good at chess and they have failed to become GMs yet really frigtens me about the actual strength of GMs.
Originally posted by diskamylStill, the inexperience would make it hard... and take weyerstrass for an example. He is good and experienced at correspondance.
I really doubt that. I don't think being very good at correspondence chess (I mean ICCF, where computers are allowed) means being good at chess. I have now the impression that most of them are actually not very good at all, they only have a good understanding of the openings and analysing with computers.
and so few grandmasters have played cc till now, ...[text shortened]... ss and they have failed to become GMs yet really frigtens me about the actual strength of GMs.