Who has the deeper understanding of chess?

Do you think correspondence Grandmasters/players in general have a deeper understanding of chess than OTB Grandmasters/players in general, or vice versa?

probably 😀

No.

Originally posted by gambit3
No.

I think not.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Do you think correspondence Grandmasters/players in general have a deeper understanding of chess than OTB Grandmasters/players in general, or vice versa?

A difficult question. I think to be a successful correspondence player requires much more perseverance and hard work, sometimes spending hours analysing reams of variations and possible moves.

On the other hand, over-the-board players I think require a little more raw talent in the game, expecially in terms of visualisation.

They really are two very different games, and when you take into account the whole psychology of Saturday tournament play, I think you would agree with me.

Current World Corres. Champ, Ivar Bern, admits to engine use, and in the ICCF their use is legal, so I think the answer is OTB GM's are better. Even if you go back to pre-computer days, top-level correspondence players were non-GM's OTB. Most correspondence players have ratings a couple hundred points higher than their OTB ratings (even those that don't use engines).

Originally posted by masscat
Current World Corres. Champ, Ivar Bern, admits to engine use, and in the ICCF their use is legal, so I think the answer is OTB GM's are better. Even if you go back to pre-computer days, top-level correspondence players were non-GM's OTB. Most correspondence players have ratings a couple hundred points higher than their OTB ratings (even those that don't use engines).

"Current World Corres. Champ, Ivar Bern, admits to engine use, and in the ICCF their use is legal, so I think the answer is OTB GM's are better...."

can you explain the logic in that? Awaiting your explanation, I consider this BS.

Originally posted by masscat
Current World Corres. Champ, Ivar Bern, admits to engine use, and in the ICCF their use is legal, so I think the answer is OTB GM's are better. Even if you go back to pre-computer days, top-level correspondence players were non-GM's OTB. Most correspondence players have ratings a couple hundred points higher than their OTB ratings (even those that don't use engines).

I don't see the logic sorry. You are saying that a 2600 OTB GM has the same understanding as a 2600 corr GM and as corr GMs have lower OTB ratings they must have less understanding. Firstly you can't compare ratings like that. Secondly, corr and OTB are very different skills, of course someone who concentrates on one over the other would excel in that one.

Also, at the top corr levels engines cannot compete. Even Hydra (running on 64 dedicated processors) loses to corr GMs. So what is your point about them reducing top level corr GMs understanding of chess?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ

Even Hydra (running on 64 dedicated processors) loses to corr GMs. So what is your point about them reducing top level corr GMs understanding of chess?

really? you are not making this up?

Originally posted by Jusuh
really? you are not making this up?

I never make things up.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1339074

The Hydra Chimera "only" had 32 processors; Nickel of course had engine help, permitted by ICCF rules.

Nickel (FIDE OTB rating 2101) won this game against Hydra as well.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1339073

And strong CC players at this site have beaten strong banned engine users (and have drawn many, many times).

Game 997086
Game 810662 (White has a winning position here)
Game 661930
Game 1598004
Game 1293010

I believe OTB takes much greater skill because in CC one is able to calculate all the lines through and CC players have access to the best opening theory, game databases, and in the ICCF, engines. In OTB chess, there is limited time, it is harder to calculate through all lines, and there are no aids.

Originally posted by vuelve
I think not.

Does that mean you think a correspondence champion understands chess better then such players as Kasparov and Karpov did?

When thinking of buying The System by Hans Berliner (one time corr world champ) I read Jeremy Silman's review of the book (fyi no review I've read has been good). Silman categorically stated that corr players understanding was well below that of OTB GMs but did not explain why. I must admit when people talk of the real chess geniuses they talk of Fischer, Morphy, etc. I understand that corr chess has less of a public face but if there was a real chess genius buried amongst them I'm sure they'd be pretty well known.
I also note that a lot of chess openings/variations were invented by OTB players, not too many by corr players.
I am not of a playing level to be able to look at games and say for definite whether one GM game is of a higher level of understanding than the other but the above is certainly evidential that OTB players may indeed by better.
Also regarding the idea of patience, etc of OTB players that was mentioned above, they do all that before the games, just as much as corr players do during them

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparv, Kramnik

Purdy, Ragozin, O’Kelly, Zagorovsky, Berliner, Rittner, Estrin, Sloth, Oim, Palciauskas, Baumbach, Sanakoev, Umansky, Timmerman, Hamarat, Bern, van Oosterman

Which list has the best players?

Originally posted by masscat
Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparv, Kramnik

Purdy, Ragozin, O’Kelly, Zagorovsky, Berliner, Rittner, Estrin, Sloth, Oim, Palciauskas, Baumbach, Sanakoev, Umansky, Timmerman, Hamarat, Bern, van Oosterman

Which list has the best players?

Which list has the best press?