This is a forum for members of the All India Correspondence Chess Federation.
Only members can post.
I just now had the thought that the AICCF Bulletin can be made more readable and the space utilized more for the maximum benefit of the readers. The average CC player may be 'confused' when to follow the Computer's recommendation(s)(where different engines give different evaluations) or to choose when to trust his own analytical strength. The position is all the more confounded when the player has access to newer tools and also the requisite knowledge to 'improve' his result.(See the article 'New Features in Aquarium 4.0.6 by Dadi Jonsson dt 14th Aug. 2010 under 'Columns' and also the informative 'Deep Fritz 12' Article both on the website www.chesscafe.com). Such newer tools and the requisite knowledge(to become computer saavy) are both going to increase in the years to come! So I suggest the AICCF persons who have the 'correct' contacts should request the elite CC players from abroad to contribute a regular column in AICCF Bulletin which should clarify the 'critical' position in their games when they followed their own analysis and what could have occurred had they blindly trusted the engine. This is the proper method and only by obtaining this insight an average CC player can IMPROVE his results. But for this guidance is necessary when the elite players can easily help by a series of articles.
18th August 2010 1410 hrs
Certainly the most appropriate word was 'informative' instead of 'readable' as pointed by Mr. Dhanish! Regarding the rest of the contents I am only in partial agreement with Mr. Dhanish. Basically, the issue is - Can a reader's chess 'understanding' improve by having access to quality material? The answer appears to be: Definitely YES but for only those who have inherent Chess Talent. To consider an example, several worthies have emphasised that 1 way to improve is to play through the past games of the masters. Only the elite do NOT require any annotations to these games but for millions of chess players reading of these annotations AND with the replay of these GAMES would lead to a greater 'understanding' as compared with the scenerio when these sources of knowledge simply DID NOT EXIST! If these sources simply did not exist, a person's progress would be certainly stunted like living alone on an isolated island!
These sources can be teachers, books, articles, websites etc.
Thus what I had in mind was: As the ICCF Congress was held in Mumbai in 2004 attended by several 'greats' some persons may still retain a close connection with them. If a request was made some may contribute an Article or two for the AICCF Bulletin, leading to 'at least some' increase of 'understanding' which may translate to a more rapid progress of the player!
Only the articles of 'greats' need to be considered because 'something' contributes to their HIGH Rating and this 'something' is the OPTIMUM choice made by them in their games.(Especially CC)
Trust the readers agree!
Y chess friend
1st September 2010 7.34 am
I don't agree with Sh. D.M. Modak on these points:
Talent is an integration of many qualities and one can not point out how many of them a "TALENTED" person have in a particular field. (like sport, hobby or art etc.)
e.g. Anand is a fast and talented but nervous player. Nervousness was the main reason why Kasparov had more score over him besides Anand's "Talent". But at age 40 Kasparov was planning for "SANYAS" and Anand is preparing for next WC Chp Challenge. Both have talent with different qualities, results and career.
After all one's learning and practice there comes the will power which needs most to combat with the boringness of that particular sport, hobby or art etc. If you win that boringness you will excels further else not.
Anybody who is not learning cannot excels in any field and nobody is perfect. And if a person is perfect in chess then he/she don't need to see other's game altogether.
It is good to get articles from outside but in AICCF, there are many players who know much about computer chess and there is no dearth of knowledge on this subject. The problem is that they don't have time or will power to write or may be some wants to be in elite group of low level pyramid.
High Ratings are not a proof of High level play. Somebody says "Rating is invented by a devil".