Can the world correspondence champion beat Stockfish

[Chessqueen]

Can the world correspondence champion beat Stockfish at 2 days per move and allowing stockfish 24 hours per move, and the correspondence world champion to use any chess engine besides stockfish

[Graham Banks]

Without computer help. no.

[Peter Berger]

Can the world correspondence champion beat Stockfish at 2 days per move and allowing stockfish 24 hours per move, and the correspondence world champion to use any chess engine besides stockfish

Stockfish at 24 hours per move probably IS the current correspondence world champion.

[fsanders]

Yes.

[Stephen Ham]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

[Chessqueen]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

I do NOT Believe that Chess can be solved so easy by allowing Stockfish to think for 24 hours per each move, therefore when P.C reach the same calculating power of game in 120 minutes as using Stockfish to calculate for 24 hours per move, we will solve Chess in 20 Years by using a regular P.C.

[Chessqueen]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

I do NOT Believe that Chess can be solved so easy by allowing Stockfish to think for 24 hours per each move, therefore when P.C reach the same calculating power of game in 120 minutes as using Stockfish to calculate for 24 hours per move, we will solve Chess in 20 Years by using a regular P.C.

This is a player that is NOT even an IM in standard over the board FIDE Ratings, which clearly tell us that any Master player with a good Ending knowledge and a great opening ECO Book and one of the top 3 chess engines can become a Correspondence World Chess Champion, Anyway, here is the interview ==>

[Chessqueen]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

According to Dr. Jon Edwards who retired from Princeton University and is the current or 32nd Correspondence Chess Champion, he stated that human guidance is still the key to success in correspondence chess is claimed in Jon’s own words: “Computers today are tactical monsters and positional masters, but they fall short in positions that involve long-term planning within fixed structures...”

[CornfedForever]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

According to Dr. Jon Edwards who retired from Princeton University and is the current or 32nd Correspondence Chess Champion, he stated that human guidance is still the key to success in correspondence chess is claimed in Jon’s own words: “Computers today are tactical monsters and positional masters, but they fall short in positions that involve long-term planning within fixed structures...”

"According to Dr. Jon Edwards who...." won the title when someone blundered via a recording error....if my memory and look at the games doesn't fail me. The person who made the error could have as easily made it against one of the other players...in which can you would be referencing Dr. Jon Edwards, USCF "A" player who failed in his bid to win the ICCF Championship.

I don't mean for that to sound as bad as it does - heck, I have long owned his 'THE CHESS ANALYST' book, and loved it. But that was 25 yrs ago, when there was still life in the game.
Even little ol' me even has a 1.5/2 OTB score against a current ICCF GM.

All I'm really saying here is that Stephen Ham is right. "100%" draw (barring, ahem...transcription errors...). "Correspondence" is dead. What exists is...well, just something else.

[Chessqueen]

Chess is a draw. So at the top level of ICCF play, all games are drawn, no matter how much effort we make to force victories.

Also, SF at 24 hours/move will surely avoid loss. So, I forecast 100% draws in this hypothetical match.

-Steve-

According to Dr. Jon Edwards who retired from Princeton University and is the current or 32nd Correspondence Chess Champion, he stated that human guidance is still the key to success in correspondence chess is claimed in Jon’s own words: “Computers today are tactical monsters and positional masters, but they fall short in positions that involve long-term planning within fixed structures...”

"According to Dr. Jon Edwards who...." won the title when someone blundered via a recording error....if my memory and look at the games doesn't fail me. The person who made the error could have as easily made it against one of the other players...in which can you would be referencing Dr. Jon Edwards, USCF "A" player who failed in his bid to win the ICCF Championship.

I don't mean for that to sound as bad as it does - heck, I have long owned his 'THE CHESS ANALYST' book, and loved it. But that was 25 yrs ago, when there was still life in the game.
Even little ol' me even has a 1.5/2 OTB score against a current ICCF GM.

All I'm really saying here is that Stephen Ham is right. "100%" draw (barring, ahem...transcription errors...). "Correspondence" is dead. What exists is...well, just something else.

Here are some recommendations to improve correspondence chess ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspon ... aw-problem
Therefore, I specifically suggest enhancing the score system to include a ¾ point
for a performance with an added value as compared to a regular draw:

Being a piece up against the naked king like a Knight or Bishop but insufficient to checkmate your opponent should be awarded 3/4 point
Conversely, the weaker side should be awarded only ¼ point in these cases

And here is the best correspondence chess game when chess engines were just pawn pushers