Correspondence ICCF Champion Vs Top Engine ?

[jr66]

Thanks Milos !
It confirm test has none interest ....and if i played the Spanish, i would have the boring Berlin in add of that !

[Leto]

If you consider several games with openings choices open with no Book for engine alone, i think however the ICCF champion will win the match ???

I would certainly hope so (else correspondence chess were +completely+ futile).
It is probably a matter of patience and research mostly these days. From time to time you come across opening lines were you spot that engines have a problem, ( usually with the help of another engine or high-level human analysis). These cases have become rare, but they still exist.
But even then one may wonder if this ICCF champion ability couldn’t be automated itself – mostly this is just clever database management, isn’t it?
I think I could be an ICCF GM if I cared enough and had the time and ressources necessary. But what a boring achievement.
OTOH over the board chess at a sub-GM-level has actually become more interesting. You can always check where you went wrong and given that you are determined enough improvement has become easier. IMHO – YMMV.

You can always check where you went wrong in correspondence games too.

[Leto]

In the July ratings list I will be around 2350 at ICCF. Any top correspondence player would have an easy time against any unassisted engine with regular correspondence time controls (10 moves in 40 days). The problem with unassisted engines is flawed pruning methods, sometimes they prune out the key moves or don't see the danger until it's too late. I've seen it so many times in my correspondence games.

[jr66]

In the July ratings list I will be around 2350 at ICCF. Any top correspondence player would have an easy time against any unassisted engine with regular correspondence time controls (10 moves in 40 days). The problem with unassisted engines is flawed pruning methods, sometimes they prune out the key moves or don't see the danger until it's too late. I've seen it so many times in my correspondence games.

Hello,
I Guess you saw this with opponents who use their engines at say depth 40 and consider it is the last word of God !
Also, you have to consider opponents openings choices in your wins because some take too much risks ?
Here, they want you play ( or a GM , no matter in fact ! ) against a computer which take 24 h or more for a move ( so less horizon effect ) with en engine which have already a Book integrated as Milos and i underlined and so, if you are a Spanish player for example, you will have to win against the Berlin ( the engines favorite line for what i see ?).
I must admit my chance to beat the engine in such conditions is near to....zero !!!
Regards
Jacques

[Leto]

In the July ratings list I will be around 2350 at ICCF. Any top correspondence player would have an easy time against any unassisted engine with regular correspondence time controls (10 moves in 40 days). The problem with unassisted engines is flawed pruning methods, sometimes they prune out the key moves or don't see the danger until it's too late. I've seen it so many times in my correspondence games.

Hello,
I Guess you saw this with opponents who use their engines at say depth 40 and consider it is the last word of God !
Also, you have to consider opponents openings choices in your wins because some take too much risks ?
Here, they want you play ( or a GM , no matter in fact ! ) against a computer which take 24 h or more for a move ( so less horizon effect ) with en engine which have already a Book integrated as Milos and i underlined and so, if you are a Spanish player for example, you will have to win against the Berlin ( the engines favorite line for what i see ?).
I must admit my chance to beat the engine in such conditions is near to....zero !!!
Regards
Jacques

Lately I've been avoiding well-researched openings, so any books would be practically irrelevant if I were the correspondence player in such a match.
From what I can tell there's still a lot of unexplored territory in the opening phase. Most of my wins or losses (not counting obvious blunders) seem to happen in the middlegame and endgame, perhaps because I or my opponent trusted the engine's top lines without exploring other possibilities enough to save time as I often am playing over 30 correspondence games at a time.

[jr66]

The integrated Book will play solid moves against say 1.g3, 1.f4, 1.b3, 1.Cc3 etc ( i guess you don't play 1.f3 ? ) and then , you give egality with White and advantage to computer if you have Black by playing too much out of best theory known ???
By the way, the quality of the middlegame result of the openings choices and you have of course much more chance for a win/lost in a KID for example than a Berlin wall !
The problem here is engine will Always play very solid openings ! You can simulate against SF NNUE in your PC and you will see boring openings choices by engines if i am not wrong ?
As we said often : for a chance of win in CC, one player must want to win ! And i have certainly big chance , but all players who tried too much to win against me gave me the win in fact or at least had to save the game

[jr66]

Note : this opening issue explain why the well known TCEC choose often unbalanced openings in order to have animated games between engines ?
The engines don't start at the first move because they know it will be not interesting i guess ?

[Leto]

The integrated Book will play solid moves against say 1.g3, 1.f4, 1.b3, 1.Cc3 etc ( i guess you don't play 1.f3 ? ) and then , you give egality with White and advantage to computer if you have Black by playing too much out of best theory known ???
By the way, the quality of the middlegame result of the openings choices and you have of course much more chance for a win/lost in a KID for example than a Berlin wall !
The problem here is engine will Always play very solid openings ! You can simulate against SF NNUE in your PC and you will see boring openings choices by engines if i am not wrong ?
As we said often : for a chance of win in CC, one player must want to win ! And i have certainly big chance , but all players who tried too much to win against me gave me the win in fact or at least had to save the game

Sure NNUE will get you a solid opening but I still believe there's a lot of life left after the opening phase. Maybe it's because I'm just around 2350 ICCF at the moment and perhaps I'll change my mind when I'm over 2400 or 2500.

[jr66]

Perhaps you simply like risks and so, as you said, you have wins and losses....
I am a very différent player because only one lose in 2014 when i was beginner on ICCF !
I have had several wins of course but i feel i will make only draws now ....and i can play various openings if i want, no problem !

[Cornfed]

Lately I've been avoiding well-researched openings, so any books would be practically irrelevant if I were the correspondence player in such a match.

Always curious, what is your OTB rating - FIDE or National Federation?