In theory, it should be extremely difficult for any individual to keep up with such coordinated analytical power in complex positions.>

Not just in theory, but in practice too! Unless that fellow happens to be Magnus Carlsen, and he happened to have 100 state-of-the-art server engines donated to him by Intel or some other such entity. And he happened to have a year-long holiday from competing in human chess.

So how can the world team be challenged? (other than this optimistic scenario) Let chessgames.com entice the world's five best correspondence players. Let cg.com entice them with high cash prizes for victory. modest compensation for a draw. And significant indebtedness for a loss?!

And let another corporate sponsor, a behemoth manufacturer, put up the high cash prizes for these top 5 in the world correspondence players. Let this corporate sponsor be a manufacturer of computer servers. And let them be in league with another corporate partner that is developing a chess engine (Komodo, Stockfish, what have you..)

Did GMARK post any further remarks after the first congratulatory message? Was he aware at all of 'hocus pocus'? I would guess not but you never know.

Looking forward to the beginning of the next match...>

I'd hoped to read GMARK's comments on the game. Perhaps he is glad it's over and does not want to be reminded about it, let alone even mentioning it on his e-mailed chess news (which I for one look forward to every week). Not every GM likes his losses to get publicity!

So you expect us to make a fatal mistake?

Could you help me define erroneous play or a mistake?

Is it a blunder move like c6 in this game?

Or not finding the correct move to avoid a loss when facing a line composed to reach puzzle like endgame positions?

As longwr the gem as bigger a certain core team remains - and is getting relatively bigger compared to the on and off voters - and a easier it get to make something like a plan - in our case „Hokus pocus“ line, which was - unoutspoken accepted.

As long as the core team is small in comparison to the complete team (at the beginning of the game) sand when there is no clear and distinct best move there is not enough power from this core team to guide the complete team.

Well, we did have the 200 or so low information voters who stuck us with 1. e4 against a Berlin expert. Hint: They'll be back next time, thwarting whatever grandiose opening plans you think you can produce.>

Well, we did have the 200 or so low information voters who stuck us with 1. e4 against a Berlin expert. Hint: They'll be back next time, thwarting whatever grandiose opening plans you think you can produce.>NOT quite right. If "core of the TEAM" was focused on some common goal those "200 or so low information voters" would not likely prevail based on statistics provided by WinKing on P. 695 for move 1. IMO, lack of opening preparation was main reason for the "core Team" disagreement resulting in tight voting result.<

<MisterMac>: No, neither did GMSKW

Completely understandable. An initial concession message, a couple of vague notes and a promise to respond more deeply later. Then silence and the longer the silence the easier it is to drop the subject entirely.

Then, they could formidably arm their dangerous team of correspondence chess elite GMs. Even with the Black pieces, this array of chess power would form a threat to the world team's undefeated record that must be taken seriously!>

I think it would be quite a challenge, one I would be happy to participate in, if our team were to play a team of elite cc GM's. I don't think it would be any threat to our undefeated record though because our record is based on a format of 1 GM against The World.

One team against another team is a different format and, in my view, would have no impact on our record.

and we should not be either. he said what needed to be said. it would be unfair from us to ask him for any data about this game theory since it is part of his repertoire earning a living.

if I would be more cynical the name of this game to be remembered by got to be:

<" a wedding present "> for the world team.

If any member would like to thank him for giving us the opportunity for exuberance please order his product to financially support his new family.

You can dowload the Issue 1 (March 2, 2012) and Issue 64 (May 17, 2013) for free here

http://www.chessdom.com/cewn-chess-... and

I assume that this includes personal talent for recall memory, receiving instructions from experienced players, opportunity to practice against higher rated players, hone your position assessment ability in actual confrontations, measure your ability in ELO ratings etc etc.

Is a lower rated player doomed to make mistakes? Or simply the inability to steer the game into or maintain equality?

Many of my opponents never could tell where they went wrong and strangely assumed to be on the winning site of the board until confronted with a shocking move. Many keep insisting that they were on the right path but some where something went wrong.

Such views are held by many upstarts and can not wait to show their superiority if only given another chance.

Is a world champion considered to play error free and can only lose if he makes a mistake?

Where does "superior ability" to assess current theory "correctly" and then apply an improved version to become the theory of tomorrow fit into your mistake theory?

There are other types of luck.

Suppose, for example, that I spend a ton of time before an important game prepping a killer anti-Sicilian system (say the Morra Gambit). The game starts, I open 1. e4, and my opponent replies 1...e5. He had no idea I was incredibly well prepared against a Sicilian, but avoided walking into it "by luck."

Or suppose in a middlegame, there are two principal candidate moves, and I evalute them to have completely equal merits. I choose one of them more or less at random and go on to win the game. When analyzing the game at home, I find that my analysis for the other (unplayed) candidate move contained a terrible mistake, and it actually would have lost. My arbitrary decision to play the move I did can only be described as lucky.

I say "likely" because noting is certain in chess. We as a team might follow up our opponent's erroneous play with some erroneous play of our own, or a mistake by our opponent by a mistake of our own. This just follows Tartakower's maxim, " The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake." Still, I think that my definitions hold.

BTW, as I was verifying that it was indeed Tartakower that this quote was attributed to, I came across this relevant page: http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-mi....

And, from the same site, here are some possibly relevant (and some amusing) quotes about chess and computers: http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-co....

And here is a perhaps pertinent quote from http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-hu...:

"GM Naiditsch reckoned that me playing the King's Indian against Anand was something akin to a samurai running at a machine gun with a sword." - Hikaru Nakamura

It's just stupid to call e4 players "low information voters". No doubt such ignorant people as Carlsen and Fischer would be included. I for one knew quite well that our opponent might play the Berlin Defence, and thought - correctly, as it turned out - that playing solidly and a bit passively would lead our opponent to start some aggressive action that would turn out eventually in White's advantage. Yes indeed; if Black had also played solidly and passively, the result would no doubt have been an uninteresting draw. It can often work in many situations to get Black to start thinking like White prematurely, particularly if he is a GM against, well, amateurs!

I think this is a bit to vague to serve as a definition.

I think it would be quite a challenge, one I would be happy to participate in, if our team were to play a team of elite cc GM's. I don't think it would be any threat to our undefeated record though because our record is based on a format of 1 GM against The World.>

Well, the cg.com world team has not even been given the opportunity yet for such a match, and already you are making excuses?

Sounds like a lame technicality to me. Along the lines of me claiming I had a better tournament than a GM, because I had a better score than he did. Only, the GM played in the Open section and I played in the under 2000 section.

There are other types of luck. >

Right, luck can take many forms.

Luck in playing a game is when the result is independent of a players abilities and knowledge or degree of attention/concentration to the game but due to an event outside of the player's control.

(You cannot control your opponents opening choice but if your opponent plays straight into your preparation - lucky you.)

<Right, luck can take many forms.>

But in our type of engine assistance playing with days of thinking time per move how would you classify a move like c6 against us from a high rated GM ?

I could understand to see a "Mistake" in positions shown below where white has a forced win but the engines may mislead the human to play a mistake.

click for larger view

But in our type of engine assistance playing with days of thinking time per move how would you classify a move like c6>