The problem of opening theory in computer chess

[Rolf]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

On what level have you got your title - in ELO number?

[Uri Blass]

Not correct. In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800. However, this is not prohibited in ICCF, so it's
not regarded as cheating. Even the top GM's are pressured to use Rybka 3
more and more. Over at chessgames.com during "rest of the world"
games, the past few GM's have been heavily supplementing their moves
with Rybka 3 analysis.

It is a common argument that the general café chessplayer isn't
affected by this development. However, there are hardly any café
chessplayers anymore. You can't play the King's gambit down on the
club, because your 1800-rated opponent for the next round will have
made preparations with his advanced database. So you are pressured to
play the long variants in Ruy Lopez.

Paradoxically, although opening knowledge is growing, playable theory
is continually narrowing down. In the beginning of the 20th century
the practicable opening tree constituted of an enormous shrubbery with
short branches in every possible direction. Nowadays, practicable
opening theory, among professionals, is like a long tall and narrow
tree, with few but very long branches. However, this also affects
amateur players. In email/correspondence chess the problem is
ubiquitous.
/Mats

You are simply wrong here.

1)Today the common patzer can achieve more than 2500 ICCF rating by multi-rybka and not only 2400

2)1800 rated players in OTB chess usually do not do a special preperation
There are also clearly players with significantly better rating than 1800 who use the king gambit in every game.

I know it because I play against players with rating above 1800
They are not professionals.

Chess is only a hobby for them and they are not going to learn many thousands of lines for a game only to know what to do against the king gambit that somebody play.

Uri

[Graham Banks]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

On what level have you got your title - in ELO number?

I don't have an FM title or anything like that and I only played correspondence chess over a five year period, but I reached around 2400 elo. I'd need to look it up on the net to be more exact. Certainly not the same level achieved by Robin, Stephen Ham and Uri (possibly others around here too?).

[Uri Blass]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

You may be right for 94-95 but computers got clearly better since then.

Uri

[Graham Banks]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

You may be right for 94-95 but computers got clearly better since then.

Uri

You know that and I know that, but back then there was still a fear and distrust regarding the use of computer chess engines in any type of tournament.

[Graham Banks]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

On what level have you got your title - in ELO number?

I don't have an FM title or anything like that and I only played correspondence chess over a five year period, but I reached around 2400 elo. I'd need to look it up on the net to be more exact. Certainly not the same level achieved by Robin, Stephen Ham and Uri (possibly others around here too?).

Code: Select all

ICCF Ratings - October 2008
Code	Title	Name	 	Games	Rating	Status
380073	SM	Noble	 Mark F.	723	2478	 
380027	SM	Freeman	 Michael Roy	217	2464	 
380116	IM	Barrance	 John M.	91	2453	 
380029	IM	Anderson	 Brian W.	245	2444	 
380026	IM	Chapman	 Roger	155	2425	i
380112	 	Stuart	 Peter W.	30	2412	i
380063	 	Van Dijk	 Peter	35	2403	i
380124	 	Banks	 Graham B.	37	2388	i
380091	 	Hampl	 Michael G.	132	2381	i
380182	 	Smillie	 W. R.	23	2375

[Rolf]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

On what level have you got your title - in ELO number?

I don't have an FM title or anything like that and I only played correspondence chess over a five year period, but I reached around 2400 elo. I'd need to look it up on the net to be more exact. Certainly not the same level achieved by Robin, Stephen Ham and Uri (possibly others around here too?).

Personally I believe you although I cant imagine how you could have won a plus of 500 ELO numbers either or that the 2400 ELO has any relevence comparable to the 1900/2000 ELO over the board. My argument is that the longer thought process alone could never lead you you to such a deep chess insight, always assumed you didnt cheat at all what I believe here. In case of my example above I knew a OTB player with some 1600 who then reached 2500+ in corr tournaments, a plus of >900 ELO. That is impossible to get without cheating IMO.

[Uri Blass]

Robert, I did not "insult" Deep Blue. One can't insult a computer. I am educated in computer science myself, and I have been very interested in opening studies. I try to address issues concerning creativity in chess, and how to strengten this aspect in view of the general problem of computerization. It is problematic.

Facts are, in the final game against Deep Blue, Kasparov made his error already in the seventh move: 7...h6?? Deep Blue did not think, but sacrificed his knight on e6 according to the book. Game over!

Then you make quotes which are not from me.
/Mats

This is not correct

Deep blue used time to play the moves.
You can see Deep blue log files.

It is also not clear that 7...h6 is losing

Some analysis after 8.Nxe6 by rybka3
It may be interesting if somebody give multi-rybka to analyze it for many hours so we can know better and I do not trust humans to know the truth.

New game - so k, 120'/40
[D]r1bqkb1r/pp1n1pp1/2p1Nn1p/8/3P4/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 1-cpu 32-bit :

8...Qd8-e7
= (0.24) Depth: 2 00:00:00
8...f7xe6
= (0.06) Depth: 2 00:00:00
8...f7xe6
= (-0.02) Depth: 3 00:00:00
8...f7xe6
= (0.17) Depth: 4 00:00:00
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0
= (0.01) Depth: 5 00:00:00
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.Bc1-f4 Nf6-d5
= (0.16) Depth: 6 00:00:00 2kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.Bc1-f4 Nf6-d5 12.Bf4-g3
= (0.18) Depth: 7 00:00:00 5kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.Bc1-f4 b7-b6 12.c2-c4 Bc8-b7
= (0.19) Depth: 8 00:00:00 15kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.Bc1-f4 Nf6-d5 12.Bf4-g3 Qe7-b4 13.Qd1-e2
= (0.19) Depth: 9 00:00:01 26kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.c2-c4 Qe7-b4 12.Qd1-e2 Kd8-c7 13.Bc1-f4+ Bf8-d6 14.a2-a3
² (0.34) Depth: 10 00:00:04 109kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.c2-c4 Qe7-b4 12.Qd1-e2 b7-b6 13.Bc1-f4 Bc8-a6 14.b2-b3 Qb4-e7
² (0.26) Depth: 11 00:00:06 165kN
8...Qd8-e7 9.0-0 f7xe6 10.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-d8 11.c2-c4 b7-b6 12.Bc1-f4 Bc8-b7
² (0.38) Depth: 12 00:00:12 334kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7
² (0.27) Depth: 12 00:00:20 540kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7 10.0-0 Qd8-c7
² (0.27) Depth: 13 00:00:27 708kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7 10.0-0 Qd8-c7 11.Rf1-e1 Ke7-d8 12.Bc1-d2 Bf8-e7 13.c2-c4 Nd7-f8 14.Bg6-d3 Bc8-d7 15.Nf3-e5 Kd8-c8
= (0.25) Depth: 14 00:01:05 1789kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7 10.0-0 Qd8-c7 11.c2-c4 Ke7-d8 12.g2-g3 Bf8-e7 13.Bc1-f4 Qc7-a5 14.Qd1-d3 Nd7-f8 15.Nf3-e5 Nf8xg6
² (0.36) Depth: 15 00:01:53 2997kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7 10.0-0 Qd8-c7 11.c2-c4 Ke7-d8 12.g2-g3 Bf8-e7 13.Bc1-f4 Qc7-a5 14.Qd1-d3 Nd7-f8 15.Nf3-e5 Nf8xg6
² (0.36) Depth: 16 00:03:37 5869kN
8...f7xe6 9.Bd3-g6+ Ke8-e7 10.0-0 Qd8-c7 11.c2-c4 Ke7-d8 12.g2-g3 Bf8-e7 13.Bc1-f4 Qc7-a5 14.a2-a3 Nd7-f8 15.b2-b4 Qa5-a6 16.Bg6-d3
= (0.22) Depth: 17 00:06:10 10232kN

(so k, 24.05.2009)

Uri

[Graham Banks]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.

On what level have you got your title - in ELO number?

I don't have an FM title or anything like that and I only played correspondence chess over a five year period, but I reached around 2400 elo. I'd need to look it up on the net to be more exact. Certainly not the same level achieved by Robin, Stephen Ham and Uri (possibly others around here too?).

Personally I believe you although I cant imagine how you could have won a plus of 500 ELO numbers either or that the 2400 ELO has any relevence comparable to the 1900/2000 ELO over the board. My argument is that the longer thought process alone could never lead you you to such a deep chess insight, always assumed you didnt cheat at all what I believe here. In case of my example above I knew a OTB player with some 1600 who then reached 2500+ in corr tournaments, a plus of >900 ELO. That is impossible to get without cheating IMO.

I have trouble visualising the position on the board too far ahead in my mind when playing over the board.
Playing correspondence chess overcame that obstacle.

Cheers,
Graham.

[bob]

One day we could perfectly have an engine who is the best in the world because it has found a way to always win playing 1.f4 while its result are poor with 1.e4 or 1.d4. As it may choose to allways play 1.f4 it will win every championship.

The engine can only play what is programmed into it, so it is not effectively choosing to play openings as humans do (not yet anyway).

Cheers,
Graham.

I'm not sure what this means. Probably the best "book learner" around was mchess pro. Marty did the usual book-learning stuff to learn which moves were good and which were bad. But then after finishing a game, he went back and added to this book by using the moves played in the game just finished, so that the program would "learn" to extend the book by playing moves where it won, and avoid playing moves that led to a loss...