32nd World Correspondence Champion is an American

[CornfedForever]

Jon Edwards!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/cros ... n=Trending


The title of the article: Why Correspondence Chess Is Still Popular Among Elite Players...well, that's clearly misleading.

If you discount all the games the tail-ender gave up, I count 4 wins. Not like the 'good ol' days' when I played, that's for sure.

https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042

And do my eyes deceive me? Edwards - Michalek....one of the decisive games, doesn't Jon win on...maybe a 'clerical error' with 31...Kf7??

If so...reminds me of the game that kept me from qualifying to the Golden Knights finals - back in the days of post cards when I was in college - I captured with a ROOK...but my 'R' looked like a 'Q'ueen. Damn 'loopy' making of an 'R'! Oh, how disheartening that was.

[Uri Blass]

Jon Edwards!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/cros ... n=Trending


The title of the article: Why Correspondence Chess Is Still Popular Among Elite Players...well, that's clearly misleading.

If you discount all the games the tail-ender gave up, I count 4 wins. Not like the 'good ol' days' when I played, that's for sure.

https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042

And do my eyes deceive me? Edwards - Michalek....one of the decisive games, doesn't Jon win on...maybe a 'clerical error' with 31...Kf7??

If so...reminds me of the game that kept me from qualifying to the Golden Knights finals - back in the days of post cards when I was in college - I captured with a ROOK...but my 'R' looked like a 'Q'ueen. Damn 'loopy' making of an 'R'! Oh, how disheartening that was.

If you discount all the games the tail-ender gave up and he lost against most opponents then
the world champion was lucky to win one game because of a clerical error and drew the rest of his games.

[Ozymandias]

31... Kf7 clearly deserves a double question mark.

[pgn] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 Nbd7 11.Qd2 g6 12.Be2 Bg7 13.O-O b6 14.h3 O-O 15.a4 Qc7 16.Kh2 Rfe8 17.g3 Rec8 18.c4 Nc5 19.Nxc5 bxc5 20.Rab1 Rab8 21.b3 Qe7 22.Kg2 Rb7 23.Bd1 Re8 24.g4 hxg4 25.hxg4 Qd7 26.Qe2 Reb8 27.Re1 e4 28.f4 Nh7 29.g5 f5 30.Qd2 Qc7 31.Rh1 Kf7 32.Rxh7 [/pgn]

This is very much like the latest Freestyle events, where no one can do better, so it becomes a question of who does worse against whom.

[CornfedForever]

31... Kf7 clearly deserves a double question mark.

[pgn] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 Nbd7 11.Qd2 g6 12.Be2 Bg7 13.O-O b6 14.h3 O-O 15.a4 Qc7 16.Kh2 Rfe8 17.g3 Rec8 18.c4 Nc5 19.Nxc5 bxc5 20.Rab1 Rab8 21.b3 Qe7 22.Kg2 Rb7 23.Bd1 Re8 24.g4 hxg4 25.hxg4 Qd7 26.Qe2 Reb8 27.Re1 e4 28.f4 Nh7 29.g5 f5 30.Qd2 Qc7 31.Rh1 Kf7 32.Rxh7 [/pgn]

This is very much like the latest Freestyle events, where no one can do better, so it becomes a question of who does worse against whom.

Yes, call it whatever one wants "Correspondence", "Freestyle"..."I Can't Play Good Enough Chess Myself So I Have To Let Engines and Research Do the Hard Work For Me" chess...the article should probably read: Two Years Wasted: Pursuit of a 'Title'". That said, Jon has been playing 'Correspondence' from way back and is actually a good player. I have an old paperback of his called The Chess Analyst...from largely if not entirely 'pre-engine' days.

Rough, I know...but I seriously have contempt for the idea of any 'competition' which purports to give the human the bulk of the praise (with a 'title') when clearly other things pertaining to 'move choice' are predominant. Engine vs Engine is one thing...but this is just an abomination. Why not list all the engines that suggested moves on the trophy/certificate...and say 'overseen by (insert name of human). In more enlightened times, we would look upon this as 'cheating'...where everyone is encouraged to 'cheat'. Of course, there is no way to 'stop' it...so it is essentially encouraged so as to keep the tradition going.

I find the NY Times article unintentionally humorous. It says: In most of Mr. Edwards’s games, he tries to create and press a small advantage with the goal of gently nudging his opponents over the edge where, even with the help of the strongest engine, they are unable to escape an inevitable defeat.

Yet, you take away the single 'win' (excluding the bottom feeder) by a transcription error (whatever it really was) and NONE of what is said above applies...all draws.

[Albert Silver]

Jon also has the largest chess stamp collection in the world, surpassing even Karpov's. His collection extends to envelopes, postcards, comic books (in which the cover has a chess theme) and more.

[jefk]

There also was some discussion in the ICCF group on Facebook
(first about German team win, then about the Edwards win).

The ICCF will need rule changes fast i think,
otherwise this is becoming ridiculous.

For discussion (there also has been a proposal by Arno Nickel
some time ago, also involving endgame rules, and there have
been other thoughts, eg. implying other stalemate counting
or whatever), what i currently would propose for the short term , is
counting a win if black has one pawn or more extra in the endgame (0-1)
and a White win if two pawns or more extra in the end game.

In a later stage, i would propose deviation from the 0.5 or 1-0 (or 0-1)
rules, eg. 0.55 if White ahead one pawn in the endgame 0.65 if White
ahead two pawns, Black 0.55 if equal material (*) in endgame etc.
(max score 1.0 as now for a win). And yes, the tournament software
should be updated/improved to accommodate such outcomes
(instead of only 0. 0.5, or 1.0). This should not be so difficult i presume
for those who have programmed such tourn software (hard to find
these guys maybe, but not impossible).

(*) even although the Chinese database i suggesting otherwise
(0.0 for White), i still White has a slight advantage not much
in fact less than half a pawn but we have to start simple imo.
PS later on the endgame table bases maybe would be updated
for such new counting, which would have impact on the
transition(s) from middle game to endgame (eg for unequal
bishop endgames); yet this is something of later concern.

[jdart]

counting a win if black has one pawn or more extra in the endgame

That doesn't really make sense to me: there are many, many endgames in which an extra pawn is no advantage at all. The Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit for example is full of endgames with Black a pawn down and the vast majority are draws.

[jefk]

JDart wrote:
"no sense at all' ?

well it's about correspondence chess , not normal otb chess,
maybe you missed the earlier discussion about correspondence chess
rules and the need for such modifications. Yes, in the Marshall gambit
White often can maintain a pawn, but it remains a draw;
which exactly is (an example) of the -drawing- problem !

So with such changed rules, the playing strategy for ICCF corresp. chess
would change a little bit of course, no more 'cheap' draws with the Marshall
gambit Ok, maybe this would be a bit too radical, but then i
had proposed more refined rules with the eg. 0.45/0.5/0.55/0.65 etc
counting; of course you also can make -similar- objections against|
such a proposal; but then would you have any better ideas to
avoid the draw death of computer guided correspondence chess
(as in the ICCF higest tourns? Not so easy to find a good idea
(have you played yourself ICCF correspondence chess ?)
good luck...

[jefk]

NB at first, any alternative correspondence chess (rule) version
(with modified chess endgame - and/or counting rules) probably can best be
introduced only as an 'alternative just like eg FRC960, from then on,
it's a matter of seeing whether it becomes popular and possibly
later recognized as official improved version for ICCF correspondence
chess and/or 'Freestyle ('advance') Chess (eg at infinity.com
my 2 cnts

[Ozymandias]

FRC is ugly, I don't think I'd be alone in not wanting to play that. True, whatever the proposal, many will oppose the measure, but that's because they deny that there's even a problem. Not my case, but I don't have a solution either. Maybe penalizing 3-fold repetition. Larry tested this rule as the one responsible for most of the avoidable draws, but even that, as engines become stronger, would probably not be enough. Bureaucracy is way more slow than engine progress, so whatever solution is found, it will surely arrive too late.