How is it possible to beat the strongest engine in correspon

[Isaac]

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?

[yurikvelo]

pure centaur ICCF player at least do:
- purchase and build rigs
- opening selection
- time management
- engine selection
- manage limited PC resources among several concurrent games

[Stan Arts]

Engines aren't perfect yet. Humans are still really good in figuring out a plan and seeing the bigger picture.
Intervening at the right times aided by the massive blunderchecking (where humans are weak) human+engine are still going to be significantly stronger than purely engine.

[whereagles]

Indeed. Correspondence chess has a draw rate even higher than TCEC, which is an indicator that games are better played.

[Leto]

I've been playing at FICGS for a while and just got back to playing at ICCF again.

In correspondence chess whoever does the most work efficiently tends to have an advantage.

Sitting there and having an engine spit out a 40-45 ply evaluation isn't going to get you the best result. Today's top engines are good but still not perfect and will miss a lot, especially in the middlegame. You have to do the dirty work, find out viable candidate moves and go deep with each line. I like to play them out to the endgame and if two candidate moves have the same eval I will go for the endgame that looks more complicated and thus likelier to give me the win.

Most games against players above 2200 will end up drawn so you need to see draws as a beautiful thing rather than a bad thing otherwise you will not be happy.

[Nordlandia]

Most games against players above 2200 will end up drawn so you need to see draws as a beautiful thing rather than a bad thing otherwise you will not be happy.

Another indicator that chess is drawn with optimal play !?

[velmarin]

The engine is the least, all have the same engines, is not a secret or anything exclusive.
Same database, similar books...
So are more or less powerful, or more powerful computer...

I believe that the human factor still has that power.

[MikeB]

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?

My money would be on Larry Kaufman using either SF or Komodo on a nice 20 core machine.

[neelbasant]

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

[whereagles]

CC requires a lot of work. You can read about it here, from the recent world champion himself

http://en.chessbase.com/post/better-tha ... ubicic-1-2

And yes, an engine is not enough.