Computers and Correspondence Chess

I would like to shed some light on the use of computers and their strengths and weaknesses at correspondence chess. I have played with and without computer assistance and will use the games I have played to illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of computer usage. I will also comment on the touchy issue of morality concerning computer assistance.

According to some testing done at IECG the top commercially available computers are playing around 2200-2300 rating at correspondence chess. This means there is a great resource available for whoever wants to use it, almost like having a master to help analyze your positions. As well there are the huge database programs readily available so that you can play master strength openings up to point as well. Conceivably a person using a computer will play even higher than the computer on its own. It require s a person with a better understanding of the game than the computer has but this is probably the case for B level and up. Does this mean a plethora of master strength correspondence players? Well probably not since to improve on a computers play a great deal of analysis and study is necessary and this is really what seperates the best from the mediocre without computers. Also there is the point that the stronger players who use a computer should be able to play that much better than weaker ones who do. Perhaps overall playing strength will increase and ratings will decrease to compensate as more and more players use computers. I think the general acceptance and use of computers is inevitable though and so the best players will still be the best except everyone will have more resources and chess theory will pe pushed at an accelerated pace.

When playing a game with computer assistance I would basically analyse the position with a normal set and then on the computer trying out different moves I thought playable making sure I wasn't missing any short range tactics.The computer can be a very good tool in this regard, if you have a fair understanding of the game, since you can efectively narrow its search and use it to consider likely positions much further than it normally could on its own. The drawback of this is that it is entirely possible to be come too engrossed in what the computers evaluation of a position is and lose sight of a deeper plan that is the human strength of the equation.
In the following game moves such as 17. e6 and 18.... h6 are moves that, regardless of their merit,a computer could not come up with because the material justification for the moves is beyond computer move horizons. Being able to confidently play move s, such as these, that a computer evaluates as bad is essential if you are going to use computer assistance. Good experience with playing against computers or analysing the games they play is also a must because in certain positions they are phenomenally strong and others, such as closed positions, they are very weak and the computers value must be judged accordingly. A good example of these strengths and weaknesses is the Kasparov - Deepblue match. Game 1 saw the computer at its best in a tactical fight with lots of targets the last game saw the computer at its worse in a closed position where it got pushed off the board.

Ian Rout (Aus)- Jim Brennan(Can)

This game the computer allowed me a bit of false security in choosing the opening variation after bxa e.p. +, it never had a clue as to how precarious the black position became around move 23 and it didn't recognize the winning line I cited either. Also several times during the game moves suggested by the computer I reguarded as losing outright. The computer was still a big help help though since it allowed me to check the pertinent lines during the very tactical middle of the game.This shows the d ouble edged nature of using a computer for assistance.

I also played a correspondence match against a computer. I requested this match to get a better idea of my strength versus a computer. This match was therefore played without computer assistance.The first game is an example of how not to play against a computer.The computer is the Tasc R30 2.5 stand alone, it is rated 2357 on the SSDF list and has an estimated strength of 2550 USCF for over the board chess I beleive the strongest stand alone computer available. The computer was evaluating approximately 22,000,000 (22 million) positions before each move. This information was witheld untill well into the match as it was part of an ongoing study by IECG which as since lapsed due to their difficulties this summer. I have to say I underestimated the machine at first untill I realized I was losing the first game and really bore down after that in the second. Perhaps the knowledge of the stre ngth of the computer would have helped me but that is no excuse.The computer plays excellently in this game and refutes whites line of play after Bh6. It is no slouch and I was soundly outplayed.

Jim Brennan ----- Computer 5

Computer 5 - Jim Brennan

You contribute more to a game the less assistance of any type that you use but this has to be weighed with practicality and quality and judged according to your specific reasons for playing correspondence chess. Creation , accomplishment and competition are key reasons to play correspondence chess and these are enhanced the more of oneself that is put into each game but the computer pushes these to a new level and those that want to compete on equal footing have to realize it. Computers are here and they are being used.They necessarily must be allowed in world class play because their use can't be stopped. We have to deal with the situation and realize that the computer, like it or not, is a part of correspondence chess, to think otherwise is delusional.
Is it moral to use computer assitance? This requires a definition of morality. I think morality is defined as what is acceptable to the individual as being appropriate and ethical but, since there is a dependence on opinion, morality is a changing entity. In a situation so dependent on opinion we can only inform ourselves and make a choice. I beleive the morality of computer use has necessarily come into being for correspondence chess. Having said that, there is still room for people to compete without computers but it has to be done with the realization that they might be playing with a handicap and tournaments or matches dissallow ing computers are on the honor system alone.

We have to play with what suits our own values and morals being honest with ourselves . I beleive computers lead us closer to the truths of a position while still leaving ample room for human contribution and should be regaurded as another tool that pushes competition to higher levels. I don't recomend using computer assistance to everyone and I think one should consider their stand alone strength against their computer when deciding if to use one. If you don't think you can find better moves than your computer suggests by itself then you probably shouldn't use it since you won't get much out of the game. If you think you can play better strategically and positionally than a computer than use one. If you think you are better tactically than today's computers you are mistaken.