Did you? Did you send all the analysis you were making to your opponent to help them out avoid making mistakes so you both achieved the perfect game?mroh wrote:Yeah, call me naive, but thats how I have always handled correspondence chess since Ive been doing it with postcards as a kid.
I have never seen anyone do such a thing, you want to play perfect chess for your side, and this implies reaching positions where it's harder and harder for your opponent to avoid playing the mistake.
Sometimes a position with a 0.00 score is no different from a 0.99 score from the theoretical perspective of chess, both moves lead to a draw with perfect play. Suppose you manage to find a draw with the 0.99 move, do you go "oh well, nuts! Looks like I have nothing here, I'll send a draw offer...", or, since you spent days analyzing the positions and know this draw is hard to find, you play the 0.99 move and hope the opponent misses the right continuation because they're not being as thorough as you? Because, most games I've won have been like this, the opponent missed something that allowed me to win, and this isn't different from OTB chess, except it uses a completely different set of skills.
Yeah, certainly Correspondence Chess is like, excuse the term, "sex without the orgasms", since I have been more frutrated in some of my won games because my opponents clearly had no hope and still drag the game for months... sometimes for years, and sometimes they never return again and I wonder if I should have allowed infinite time controls in the first place.mroh wrote:Sure, its always nice to win, but if I would like to have more of the "fighting" (and winning) aspect of chess, I would play OTB, which is pure fighting and destroying your opponent, as Bobby F. and Garry K. once said.
There's no euphoria in corr chess, because the result is already known weeks in advance, and sometimes your opponent resigns in a game you have not cared about months ago, so wins left a lot to be desired, and the closest thing to satisfaction is finding a continuation your opponent misses that gives you a great edge, but you never know if it's decisive, so nothing like the instant gratification of chess games.
And that's why I quit computer chess.
But what if you really suck at OTB chess but you're good at Corr Chess? I had to come back to it because I found nothing else to do and because apparently I'm still improving my analysis methods, so it's something to do and I have been sad about talented corr chess players wasting their talents by quitting because they'd rather do something else with their lives.
Chess is an unsolvable problem, what I have seen in the last decade of computer chess is that it's just the openings that change, some appear playable that looked dubious before, others that were mainlines for years are basically solved to a draw with all the live and interesting variations sucked out of them... I still remember when the Sicilian's Poisoned Pawn was interesting!mroh wrote:But maybe, this idea is simply an illusion of an old, naive and stupid man ^^
But we're not closer to finding real truth than we were back when Rybka 1.0 beta was released... And any analysis that you produce today will be obsolete 5 years from now, with Stockfish 11 showing many huge advantage positions being actually 0.00, and finding holes in lines that were supposedly sharp but actually can be refuted, with the side with the supposed advantage being reversed from what it was.
You should analyze chess positions because you enjoy doing so, not because you want so solve a problem or advancing the art. And only if you have nothing better to do. I once played this guy that loved corr chess greatly and was very strong, but had to take a break and tone him down because he was losing his family
I might have sent something back when you invited me if Private Trees were already implemented, the reason I haven't sent a single position into Free Aquarium is that since it's public, any of my +40 opponents could potentially look into my positions I'm playing with them, and that's a no-no.mroh wrote:Why should I implement something to help different users to hide their analysis where there are no users and no analysis?
So currently the main difference between fA and other alternatives is that those allow the user to keep things private by default and only share them if they wish. Heck, none that I remember have a way to share your analysis with people from inside the GUI
What about this?:
Moves added to Private Trees become public automatically after 1 year of being inserted into fAquarium.
This way more people would be willing to share, hopefully, and then right now you have the main public trees looking das and all but one year later, if people aren't afraid to have their analysis published 1 year from now, thos private positions will start popularing the tree, and you'll have the results you want with a year delay, but better late than never.