How is it possible to beat the strongest engine in correspon

[Nordlandia]

So Xeon E5-2698 v3 , 64GB is not enough in correspondence?

How much influence can human at this point guide engines anyway?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... Hz&id=2368

[yurikvelo]

So Xeon E5-2698 v3 , 64GB is not enough in correspondence?

How much influence can human at this point guide engines anyway?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... Hz&id=2368

you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.

In my case, this would basically mean that I, as a player with a FIDE rating of about 2200, had to evaluate the moves of several 3300+ “players”. That cannot up well. If you stick to one engine you gradually get to know it better, you know where it is strong, you know where it is weak, you know, which positions it plays well and which positions it does not like.

But you should not let the engine do all the work, for instance, by giving the engine a certain position, then leave the computer for a couple of hours, and when returning just check what the computer proposes. You will do much better if you watch the thinking process, to try to recognise and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the machine and to guide the analysis.

You also need a lot of patience! If you are unsure what move to make, wait – and sleep one night over it. Use your 24 hour time buffer. Let the engine finish the iteration. All top engines today prune very heavily, so using the “Next Best” function is the main tool for correspondence play.

[Uri Blass]

I wonder how it's possible to beat the strongest chess engine(s) in correspondence chess.
I assume that for an engine the more time given for a move, the better the move played.
I assume that humans are weaker than the strongest engine and any move made by the human will in average be weaker than the one of the engine.

One way I can think about beating the strongest engine is by using at least 3 computers, one with multi pv =2 or so, and on the other one checking whether the 2nd best line considered is better or not than the 1st one (by comparing the score with the 3rd computer). On the 3rd computer just let run the engine on the main pv. A script could handle all of this and no chess knowledge is required from the human part.

Am I missing something?

I can play correspondent game against engine and most probably i will win while i am just a 1430 fide rated player.
Any one interested can start the same.

Neel

I totally disagree.

I have fide rating above 2000 but most probably the result is going to be a draw.

Human input has only a little value these days and it is certainly less than 100 elo against top engines that use 24 hours per move.

[Leto]

I wonder how it's possible to beat the strongest chess engine(s) in correspondence chess.
I assume that for an engine the more time given for a move, the better the move played.
I assume that humans are weaker than the strongest engine and any move made by the human will in average be weaker than the one of the engine.

One way I can think about beating the strongest engine is by using at least 3 computers, one with multi pv =2 or so, and on the other one checking whether the 2nd best line considered is better or not than the 1st one (by comparing the score with the 3rd computer). On the 3rd computer just let run the engine on the main pv. A script could handle all of this and no chess knowledge is required from the human part.

Am I missing something?

I can play correspondent game against engine and most probably i will win while i am just a 1430 fide rated player.
Any one interested can start the same.

Neel

I totally disagree.

I have fide rating above 2000 but most probably the result is going to be a draw.

Human input has only a little value these days and it is certainly less than 100 elo against top engines that use 24 hours per move.

All it would take is for the engine to get stuck on the wrong move for 24 hours, I've seen it happen countless times. If it's on infinite analysis mode for 24 hours per move I think that's a huge waste of electricity. Even Deep Position Analysis is far more efficient than that.

Yes most likely the game will end drawn but in a match of 12 games I think the centaur has a good shot of winning a close match against a pure engine.

[Nordlandia]

Do you recommend "Deep Position Analysis" for complex positions than "Infinite Analyse"

[Leto]

Do you recommend "Deep Position Analysis" for complex positions than "Infinite Analyse"

It's in my opinion stronger because less chance of missing the best move.
However I prefer to do the analysis manually rather than having it done automatically. I believe I can save a ton of time doing it manually.

[Tdunbug]

This is where aquarium 2015 and it's IDEA position analysis feature becomes handy