seadevil new #1?

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I have to say I disagree with that assessment Dragon Fire. I think the endgame was incredibly difficult position to analyse.

Look at the position after White's 81st move:

[fen]8/1k1b1Q2/1p2p1P1/6q1/1P1p4/5P2/5K2/8[/fen]
Black to move

Here seadevil managed to accurately calculate that even though Cludi would queen two moves before him he would be a ...[text shortened]... eight points higher than seadevil's, but in correspondence he is on a completely level to me.

I am inferior to you both OTB and here but lets just consider the options quickly.

As I see it Seadevil has only 2 possible moves 81. ... Qd5 protecting the B or 81. ... Qe3+. 81. ... Qd2+ I am discounting fairly quickly as placing the Q in front of the pawn doesn't seem to make much sense whilst 81. ... Qh4+ allows the white King to approach the pawn and that cannot be right. If any other moves are in the frame it is beyond my chess playing ability to even find them.

So black merely needs to look at 2 moves. The obvious move to start on is 81. ... Qe3+ and if he cannot make that work he has no alternative but to protect the B. I suppose Qb5 does that also but placing the Q behind the pawn makes far more sense so I tend to discount this instantly also.

The question then arises that in deciding to play 81. ... Qd5 does black have to analyse the game out accurately? Now what I am trying to say is that whilst that would certainly be useful it is not essential as if black decides that other moves lose this becomes an only move and if it were me and I reached this conclusion I would play it feeling I might be lost but it was my best chance of pulling something out of the bag.

Sometimes you do this things come together and you win against the odds and in doing so it has not actually been necessary to analyse out everything accurately but just to find a move that gives you chances.

These calculations are deep and the variation is long and it may very well be that this is an area where human intuition sees more than an engine could (the calculations being beyond an engines horizon). After all cludi was accused of being an engine, although the allegation is (to the best of my knowledge) still unproven and he has left the site because of it, yet he has been out thought here.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
seadevil is one of those players who is much, much stronger in correspondence chess than over the board. My ECF grade is some eight points higher than seadevil's, but in correspondence he is on a completely level to me.

I dont see this type of CC chess and OTB ranking being awfully different...and before someone says yes but look at xxxx whos only an IM and won the world CC title, the difference between that and this site is that they can use engines. On this site after the opening you only have yourself to turn to, you either know what to do in a position or you dont its really that simple. There might be a slight difference between OTB ranking and this but if you're better than someone OTB you should be better here or at least not much worse.

If you think about solving problems, some chess puzzles no matter how long and how hard you look at them you wont be able to solve it because you dont know the idea/concept of the positions. I was playing through a Bronstein game last night and was finding the moves and positions incredible hard to understand.....they were beyond my limit and no matter how long I looked at the positions and analyzed I still didnt get the right moves. If I was using an engine (as they do in say the ICCF) then I could have probably of improved on Bronsteins moves without too much effort expended.

If anyone disagrees and thinks that this type of CC play will be vastly better than someones OTB play id like to hear just why they would think that.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I am inferior to you both OTB and here but lets just consider the options quickly.

As I see it Seadevil has only 2 possible moves 81. ... Qd5 protecting the B or 81. ... Qe3+. 81. ... Qd2+ I am discounting fairly quickly as placing the Q in front of the pawn doesn't seem to make much sense whilst 81. ... Qh4+ allows the white King to approach the pawn ...[text shortened]... ledge) still unproven and he has left the site because of it, yet he has been out thought here.

I don't know about inferior to me in OTB play, as I recall the score is 1-0 in your favour! I think you used the Grob as well.

As far as this position is concerned, I just wouldn't have the guts to go for a win as Black. Black seems to have a pretty simple draw by perpetual with 81. ... Qe3+.

81. ... Qd5 is certainly worth analysing as it protects the bishop and supports the d4 pawn for its march home to d1. However, White's pawn on g6 is a monster and after 82.g7 d3 83.g8=Q d2, Black still hasn't queened and when he does it won't be with check.

White's king does not look very safe at all and I would have abandoned the analysis at that stage and assumed that White would be able to do something useful with the extra queen and move! For seadevil to enter into this line voluntarily (remember, he had a draw if he wanted it) showed incredible vision and balls of steel.

Originally posted by Bedlam
I dont see this type of CC chess and OTB ranking being awfully different...and before someone says yes but look at xxxx whos only an IM and won the world CC title, the difference between that and this site is that they can use engines.

There is a difference between "can" and "do". In the case you mention there was a Russian in the final who was thought to be not using computer assistance. He played the last game against the person who won. So what does that mean? CC players can produce near perfect chess without resorting to Fritz. So how do they do that? OTB play is more blunder prone because you cannot physically play with the position. CC players can set the position up and spend much time just shuffling the pieces around and can physically blunder check each move. The OTB player must do all this in his head and may well misplace a piece or miss a crucial move in his mental map of the game.

I neither agree nor disagree with any of the accusations produced in this thread. I am just pointing out that a person who treats games on this site as proper correspondence games could produce high quality chess without illegal aids.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I don't know about inferior to me in OTB play, as I recall the score is 1-0 in your favour! I think you used the Grob as well.

As far as this position is concerned, I just wouldn't have the guts to go for a win as Black. Black seems to have a pretty simple draw by perpetual with 81. ... Qe3+.

81. ... Qd5 is certainly be worth analysing as it protects ...[text shortened]... ily (remember, he had a draw if he wanted it) showed incredible vision and balls of steel.

Point taken. I didn't try and analyse it as such, just trying to make a logical argument in favour of the lines chosen but you are correct in so far as (now I look at Qe3 in more detail) there is a simple draw and I guess I would be inclined to take that a (potential) Queen down.

Maybe that explains why I got 7 draws from 9 games in the league this year.

Originally posted by Bedlam
before someone says yes but look at xxxx whos only an IM and won the world CC title, the difference between that and this site is that they can use engines

Cecil Purdy was an IM and a CC world champion, but didn’t have engine help in the 1950s.

Quote from a web site: “His greatest skills lay in his remarkable grasp of the strategic principles of the game, as opposed to tactical skills. Such deep understanding proved invaluable to him in correspondence chess”. So, he did indeed have a deep understanding of chess, but it appears that OTB games showed his tactical limitations whereas in CC this wasn't such a relative weakness.

Originally posted by Kepler
There is a difference between "can" and "do". In the case you mention there was a Russian in the final who was thought to be not using computer assistance. He played the last game against the person who won. So what does that mean? CC players can produce near perfect chess without resorting to Fritz. So how do they do that? OTB play is more blunder prone beca ...[text shortened]... s site as proper correspondence games could produce high quality chess without illegal aids.

I wasnt pointing fingers, I was pointing out that the players are limited by their understanding of chess in how well they can play, CC or OTB.

Originally posted by Varenka
Cecil Purdy was an IM and a CC world champion, but didn’t have engine help in the 1950s.

Quote from a web site: “His greatest skills lay in his remarkable grasp of the strategic principles of the game, as opposed to tactical skills. Such deep understanding proved invaluable to him in correspondence chess”. So, he did indeed have a deep understanding of ...[text shortened]... t OTB games showed his tactical limitations whereas in CC this wasn't such a relative weakness.

I watch a lot of live otb games on ICC, and one of the things that amaze me is how often the top players make big mistakes. ones that make the amateur spectators like me immediately gasp in horror. "how could he not see it? that's an insane move!" -which just tells me that even classical controls are too fast for the top players to avoid crass mistakes. often simple tactics decide the games in the end (although it usually happens only in sufficient pressure), even for the masters. pretty much every tournament round has those games, no matter how high the level is on average.

then again, usually they simply proceed to show why the move works, and actually is the best one. 🙂

there's a long way from OTB accuracy to CC accuracy. and differences in OTB accuracy can mask a lot of differences elsewhere.

Originally posted by Bedlam
I wasnt pointing fingers, I was pointing out that the players are limited by their understanding of chess in how well they can play, CC or OTB.

True, but understanding is not the only limiting factor. Time is a big factor that needs to be accounted for when comparing the two types of game. Another factor may well be personal preference. For example, Korchnoi did not like CC. Presumably there are examples of players who prefer CC to OTB.

Originally posted by Varenka
Cecil Purdy was an IM and a CC world champion, but didn’t have engine help in the 1950s.

He did at one point, but all he got from it was "Move the pa-" before it ran out of kerosene.

Originally posted by Bedlam
I dont see this type of CC chess and OTB ranking being awfully different...and before someone says yes but look at xxxx whos only an IM and won the world CC title, the difference between that and this site is that they can use engines. On this site after the opening you only have yourself to turn to, you either know what to do in a position or you dont its r ...[text shortened]... ay will be vastly better than someones OTB play id like to hear just why they would think that.

The most players have the equal strenght in play on CC and OTB, but not all.
1. I look on myself and find that I am better on OTB then here on RHP. It is becouse I usually have a complicated playing style OTB and that many players get confused by it and use to much time to solve the problem and they get in time-trouble 😛. OTB I am also more "motivated" when I am playing.......
2. I have a friend that not use engines even when he plays CC (ICCF). OTB he get a little nervuse and maybe not have the posibility to consentrate good enough and sometimes play "poor" moves. In CC he has a lot af time and make really good games.

Another thing to think about is that when you are not in the mode for playing chess you can wait a day or two untill you are feeling better, in OTB you have no possiblity to play a couple of days later when you are feeling more inspired.....