THE FORGOTTEN GRANDMASTERS

[tommyc]

“THE FORGOTTEN GRANDMASTERS”

Having just looked over the illustrious names in the current WCDF and ACF World rankings for xboard play is it not time that Mail/Postal players who have contributed so much to draughts literature over many years are to receive Grandmaster status just like xb players??

This is no more evident especially in the last ten years as Mail players spent endless hours freeing openings that have been Barred for years without as much as a recognition of their momentous work in this area/

Consider Champions of the World like Geo Miller of England, Mac Banks of the USA ,people like Bill Carter of Canada ,Nigel Proffitt Wales to name just a few that have enhanced the game at great personal cost and time .Then looking past them to the Richard Fortmans and the like in days before there was computer prog assistance. Don’t these and others deserve some kind of Title. Without these special people we might still be playing G.AY.P.or 2 move.

What is a Grandmaster, or a Professor, or a Doctor of Scientology anyway? but someone who has excelled as their ”chosen” subject and have climbed the Everests in that field. Lets show some respect and put in place a structure that will allow them their just rewards to be called Grandmasters , its no more than they richly deserve!!. Tommy Canning

[steve]

no

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Tommy, I spoke with WCDF authorities about awarding current / former mail world Champs by Grandmasters Titles. I've got response: "Respect - yes, Title - No".

No luck this time. We have to wait when new administration will be re-elected.

Alex

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear Tommy, dear Alex,

it is right that the WCDF , at the moment, only registers titles for over-the-board play, and as you remember, we did this only since last year.
Plz give us time to work things out, as Rome was not built on one day.
Honorary titles (and mail play titles) r not awarded by the WCDF yet, but be patient.

Be sure that the rating & titles commitee is thinking about this problem, but wait until we agreed on a proposal, and until a GA agrees with our proposals.
It takes time, but, isn't checkers/draughts, especially mail play, a waiting game

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[mday]

Mail-play players use programs.

[Pedro Saavedra]

FIDE, the internation chess organization, recognizes the titles of International Master, Senior International Master and so forth for correspondence players. These are actually awarded by the International Correspondence Chess Federation. One of our own, ACF Member and fellow multi-gamer Rick Callaghan, is a Senior International Master at correspondence chess.

In my view the fair approach is to qualify with the word "Correspondence" the titles when awarded for mail (or e-mail) play.

The issue of computers is a more complex one in checkers than in chess. In checkers OTB players fairly use computers to prepare cooks that they can spring on their opponents. The question is the degree to which a correspondence player must stop doing that if he has an ongoing game. I pointed out that there was one tournament that allowed some programs and not others. I think due consideration should be given to rules that allow legitimate analysis of ongoing openings, while meeting the concerns of those who want to be certain they are not confronting Chinook or Cake or Nemesis instead of their human opponent.

Whatever the best solution, Mac Banks and Dick Fortman merited the titles long before there were computers, and I think in justice they (and a number of others) deserve the titles.

[mday]

Mail-play players use programs.

Some do, yes. But I happen to know that Richard Fortman, who's been a mail play champion several times over, doesn't even own a computer (he uses WebTV).

Yes, but without program assistance he wouldn't be able to retain that title.

[Patrick Parker]

mday.........i dont think fortman uses programs at all whatsoever
maybe you accidentally left his name in the quote....
but consider who we are talking about.......
hes been playing mail play since my grandpa was a baby

[Lindus Edwards]

My good friend Nigel Proffit has never owned a computer in his life and has won many titles, including the world championship at eleven-a-side checkers. I played Nigel in the Welsh Postal Championship and even though I used Nemesis Pro he soon took the wind out of my sails with two fine wins. That was the first and last time I used a program! The greats of correspondence checkers have something beyond program play. It is that touch of genius given to very few.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

When I asked in 2004 the former mail World Champion Jerry Childer about email, he told me that he doesn't have computer and never had it in his life !

Alex

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear mday,

one thing that many people mistake is the simple rule that the shorter the time-limit the bigger the advantage of a program against a human.

It is true that a good program can help you to play better at bullet, blitz or rapid games, but the gap is closer at tournament speed and there is even no gap in mail play.

The best chess correspondence players use programs, but only as a blundercheck for their lines, as this proved to be the best use of it.
Also some even never used a program and most claimed it would cause their creativity and postional level to drop dramatically, if they would play the best move the program found.

The depths and accuracy of the human in calculating does increase overpropotionally, but the positional deficits of the program reamains.
At correspondence level, a good program does not defeat the best humas, even if they do not use "electronic aid".

This is why internet play, and especially bullet (1 minute), super blitz (3 minutes) and blitz (5 minutes) is the field, where cheating is most effective and indeed most common, not the opposite!


Greetinx,

Ingo Zachos

[Pedro Saavedra]

We are also forgetting the legitimate uses of programs in OTB. Checkers is a game of prepared cooks. It requires knowing published play (one reason I like e-mail play is that I do not have that good a memory and prefer looking it up) and then coming up with a cook (or a refutation of the other fellow's cook). Many players prepare cooks using computers. They get the idea, then follow the line, conducting analysis and playing against the machine. Then they wait until that line comes up so they can spring it.

Suppose a player took a year off e-mail play and went through deep analysis of several openings using computers. Supposed he discovered a number of cooks and updated his books. Then he turned his computer off, but used his notes in mail play. We would not say he is cheating.

I recall one e-mail game where my opponent pulled a cook in the Cross. I could not find the move anywhere and after the game asked if he had come up with it. "I saw Tinsley play it during a simul," he replied. Well, if he had seen Chinook or Nemesis or Cake play it in the privacy of his room, would that have been different?

I favor allowing computer use, both because non-use cannot be enforced and because it leads to discovery of better lines. I suspect that people who follow every move the computer suggests will be losing consistently to the best players in the game. And people who recognize a great line suggested by the computer and recognize that other lines are not promising have a skill that others do not, and they will deservedly win.

[WLSC]

The first time i started mail play i used to use programs to play because my skill over the board was not strong. Boy what a shock i got. One does not win with programs alone. You must have a knowledge of how to play. Sure having nemesis pro can get you wins against non knowledgeable players and draw a lot of games. Now it will not get you to the top like Mac Banks and Myself(William Carter). I have a database made of over 8000 games of my play, others and play I have developed. I have a cook in a certain opening that is great if they go down a certain line. I am still trying to defend it and programs can not defend against it it loses!!!! I have enlisted a master grandmaster who gave me a line(move) that he would try. The program does not even consider it. The program goes down the tough line all the time, but people like MAC and NIGEL will not do it. So people have their own opinions so I thought I would add mine hope this helps. I just love the game and what it represents.

Those that refute on the basis of the unknown are not really checker players, they just try to demise the game and theie mind is really not that strong.

Bill

[Alex_Moiseyev]

In addition I can say - I had couple cooks developed on my own and shared them with my mail players friends. They used it with the highest strength ! One of them even won two games (!) with the same cook in the World Championship, and another one won one game.

I comeup with these cooks, when I looked manually at position, and the question arose - why not to play this move ?

The program for the short serach (25 plies) picked another move, and only when I left the prog running for more than 10 hours it came up with my move on 37 plies !

So ... the poor human still can do something to compete with programs and help mail players

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Ed Gilbert]

I suspect that people who follow every move the computer suggests will be losing consistently to the best players in the game.

There may have been some truth to this a few years ago, but this is no longer true. I believe that the two strongest checkers programs are essentially unbeatable in 3-move, either tournament or mail play. I'm not talking about programs with 10-piece databases either. I'm talking about the versions of cake and kingsrow that are free downloads on the internet. Set them up with an 8-piece db, set book moves to 'best', and set the search time to a few minutes per move, and I don't think you can get them to play into a loss.

-- Ed