Answers.Body: <p>Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".</p>
  
  <p>He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.</p>
  
  <p>My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.</p>
  
  <p>I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:26:19.107Z
Answers.Text: I would like to think so.  But his interest in computers and his winning were at the same time.  And even if his program was limited,  couldnt it have done some things like end game analysis which saved him time.  Back then there was a time limit on moves which was like 3 days plus the postal delay.  I had delays of a couple of weeks when I played USSR and East Berlin folks.  But if players were close and the position was hard, and you are working full time, anything that saved some time would be an edge.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:29:33.200Z
Answers.Text: Again, I doubt it. The difference between the first chess computers 15 years later, and what it takes to be helpful to even someone at that level is so great, I would say it is impossible. Short of someone coming up with absolute proof that he did, which I doubt, you are probably trying to prove a negative, which is impossible. It is probably going to be just speculation...against it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:36:53.057Z
Answers.Text: By the way, an article on him says that he started designing programs in the early 1960's. With hardware so weak at that point, unless he, somehow, managed to perfect it immediately, it would have been useless. In addition, he switched his focus on programming from chess to backgammon because "HiTech (the name of his chess program) was weak in board evaluation. I cannot see him using it if he, himself, thought it was that weak.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:39:16.360Z
Answers.Text: Even as a blunder check, the computers at this time would be almost useless.  At most the computer could point out a one move tactic.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mike Jones
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:27:21.277Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster  -  He was using the s/360.  NASA used them too. Calling them not helpful is misleading.  Hans moved to CMU when he continued his chess programs.  But none of that does not mean that he could not have gotten some useful help with the hardware we had then as the software was not as bloated and inefficient as now when speed and ease of delivery beats careful coding.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:28:16.310Z
Answers.Text: @MikeJones  -- I would have to disagree.  I was there and the computers could do a lot more than a one move tactic.  I still hold that it could have  been very useful in endgames.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:32:20.810Z
Answers.Text: @yobamamama I worked at the National Security Agency in 1988, and we had acres of mainframes. There was a hallway in the basement between all the mainfraimes that was in the "Guinness Book of World Records" because you could drive a semi tractor trailer down if for a quarter mile to give you an idea of how big we are talking about. All of them combined today are nowhere near as powerful as ONE PC. You are talking about almost 30 years before. Just because NASA had it then, it does not mean it was that strong relative to chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:44:06.687Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster --  IBM produced special computers for NSA.  Just because they are not as big as a PC now does not mean that you could not do a lot with them.  The model 91 that NASA had was good enough for their work.  And Hans worked in the Federal division so may have had access to the special models IBM only provided to NSA.  I know what I could do with the smaller ones I had access to and you could do a lot if  you programmed it well.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:48:35.143Z
Answers.Text: Let me put this in perspective: The s/360 that he would have had access too was capable of only 34,500 instructions per second. By comparison, a 286 as 12 MHz did 1.28 MIPS, and that was a WEAK computer. A slow, but modern Intel i5 processor at 1.6 GHz does 65,770 MIPS. And it does not matter that they were special for NASA. They were still limited by the limits of technology at that time. Even if they had models that were 100 times as fast, they were not capable of being even remotely strong enough for chess. You need to be logical here.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T23:53:56.627Z
Answers.Text: By the way, this is still 4 years after he won the World Championship, but go Google "how powerful were NASA computers in 1969" to get an idea about how weak they were. They, clearly, used THE best they had to send men to the moon, and there has been A LOT written about just how incredibly weak they are by today's standards. Even these were not strong enough to play even horrible chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-15T01:17:22.853Z
Answers.Text: Yes.  They were 'weak' by todays standards but they could do a lot.  And he did not have to do everything.  Even some help on a couple of end games could have been enough to help him  win the championship.    I wish I had asked him before he moved to Florida.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-15T01:23:00.747Z
Answers.Text: Sorry, but it is clear that you have no real conception of what they could do at that time relative to chess, which was next to nothing.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-15T01:27:34.197Z
Answers.Text: You asked a question that you are not willing to take the answer for. I was a very early adopter of chess technology; I have owned a computer company for 25 years; and I have seen up close the best computers the government had to offer in 1988; and even then, they were not capable of strong play. I qualify as an expert.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-15T12:35:16.240Z
Answers.Text: To add to @PhishMaster's comments on computational power, we also hadn't developed many of the algorithms we now see as basic to computer chess. iirc quiescence search, PVS, and selective pruning (all extremely important to modern computers) were all created late 70s/80s
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noah Caplinger
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T20:49:39.057Z
Answers.Text: As far as I can tell (from doing some Google searches...), ICCF world champions in the pre-computer era that had OTB ratings were generally in the 2000 to 2300 range. Berliner's final USCF OTB rating was 2354. He didn't have a FIDE rating but at his peak, estimates I've seen put him in the 2500 ability range.  By contrast, state of the art in computer chess at the time would have been something like MacHack VI, which was entered in a tournament in 1966 with a performance rating of about 1200.  I don't think he would have needed that kind of help.  ;-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: patbarron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-15T01:06:17.713Z
Answers.Text: Another data point: I first played Sargon (one of the first available on early PCs) in 1979 and it was easy to beat. That was a decade later. Computer chess at the time had bad horizon effects. They would tie themselves in knots just to push inevitable losses over their fixed-ply horizon. In the 1960s computer chess programs were little more than curiosities. Computer programs would recommend *bad* moves. His play would probably have degraded if he followed the advise of a computer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:23:01.577Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-14T19:23:01.577Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p><strong>Humans VS machines in the 60s-70s:</strong>
  one way of putting this accomplishment in perspective is by regarding the results of the match between Bobby Fischer and MIT Greenblatt computer program (Running Mac-Hack, a software written by the great Richard Greenblatt himself) in 1977.</p>
  <p>I do believe that in 1977, Fisher was still very representative of what humans can do at their best at chess (even though he was retired), and so was the MIT Greenblatt computer for the machines. Still, Fischer obliterated the machine (3-0). This was 12 years after Hans Berliner won his title.</p>
  <p>Now going back to your question, it seems fairly obvious that the gap between Greenblatt's computer and any computer 12 years older is very considerable. However, it appears to me that the gap between Fischer and Berliner is not <em>that</em> big. This is enough evidence for me, that, as a master, using/trusting a computer in 1965 was completely inappropriate, if not to say suicidal.</p>
  <p><strong>From the programmer's perspective:</strong>
  Berliner entered Carnegie Mellon in 1969 (4 years after his title) to do his PHD, where he came with the idea of programming HiTech, a chess engine. From Wikipedia:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It performed well, but only until it ran into transitions, that is, points in the game when the balance between the players changed. This led Berliner to conclude that HiTech was weak in board evaluation.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>He then gave up on solving chess and focused on another simpler problem: Backgammon. His first prototype was released in the early 70's. It took him nearly 10 years to achieve a strong level after he applied principles from fuzzy logic. Once again, Wikipedia:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>in 1979, BKG 9.8 was strong enough to play against the ruling world
  champion Luigi Villa. It won the match 7–1, becoming the first
  computer program to defeat a world champion in any game [..] Berliner
  states that the victory was largely a matter of luck, as the computer
  received more favorable dice rolls.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>He then goes back to trying to solve chess, and re-develops HiTech (with other big names of chess software, like Murray Campbell) and he finally obtains a computer program with master strength (2500~ elo) in 1985.</p>
  <p><strong>Temporality of events does not line up</strong>, according to his own words in the early 70's &quot;<em>HiTech was weak in board evaluation</em>.&quot; It's only 20 years after his title, (which corresponds approximately to two eternities regarding advances in computer science) that he obtains a software having the strength of a master. Said software would have probably not won the world ICCF championship at the time, as it was still way weaker than the super GMs of the 80s.</p>
  <p>If he used a computer in 1965, either the computer was garbage and would have been completely ineffective, in which case Berliner would have been stupid to use it, or he had a 2600+ strong software at the time, and then faked the next twenty years of his life by developing 1800+ software to hide his secret.</p>
  <p><strong>TL;DR</strong>
  No.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-15T14:14:33.247Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-15T16:33:53.453Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-04-15T16:33:53.453Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ghilesZ
Body: <p>Way back when, Hans Berliner worked for IBM.  I met him at an IBM data center one time, but he worked in the Federal division and just used the center for a demo. I had known him from the Washington Chess Divan earlier.</p>
  <p>I know he had done a computer program to help with chess. It was the first as far as I can tell. This was in the days when the s/360 was ruling the market, and there were no PCs, and pdp8s and the like were not up to the job although they did cause IBM a lot of grief by their cheap price and what they could do for small special-purpose jobs.</p>
  <p>The question I always had was did Hans use the IBM computers to assist his game when he won the ICCF world championship? I know that Hans was very good as a player,  but was he <strong>so</strong> good that he could have won the ICCF world championship without the computer's help? It is certainly possible, but having a really good computer analysis on some tough positions had to be helpful.</p>
  
Tags: <engines><analysis><world-championship><cheating>
Title: Did Hans Berliner win the world ICCF championship using computer help?
ThreadText: # Did Hans Berliner win the world ICCF championship using computer help?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-14)
  
  Way back when, Hans Berliner worked for IBM. I met him at an IBM data center one time, but he worked in the Federal division and just used the center for a demo. I had known him from the Washington Chess Divan earlier.
  
  I know he had done a computer program to help with chess. It was the first as far as I can tell. This was in the days when the s/360 was ruling the market, and there were no PCs, and pdp8s and the like were not up to the job although they did cause IBM a lot of grief by their cheap price and what they could do for small special-purpose jobs.
  
  The question I always had was did Hans use the IBM computers to assist his game when he won the ICCF world championship? I know that Hans was very good as a player, but was he **so** good that he could have won the ICCF world championship without the computer's help? It is certainly possible, but having a really good computer analysis on some tough positions had to be helpful.
  
  **Tags:** engines, analysis, world-championship, cheating
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-12-14. Score: 16
  
  Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".
  
  He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.
  
  My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.
  
  I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I would like to think so.  But his interest in computers and his winning were at the same time.  And even if his program was limited,  couldnt it have done some things like end game analysis which saved him time.  Back then there was a time limit on moves which was like 3 days plus the postal delay.  I had delays of a couple of weeks when I played USSR and East Berlin folks.  But if players were close and the position was hard, and you are working full time, anything that saved some time would be an edge.  
  > **username_1**: Again, I doubt it. The difference between the first chess computers 15 years later, and what it takes to be helpful to even someone at that level is so great, I would say it is impossible. Short of someone coming up with absolute proof that he did, which I doubt, you are probably trying to prove a negative, which is impossible. It is probably going to be just speculation...against it.  
  > **username_1**: By the way, an article on him says that he started designing programs in the early 1960's. With hardware so weak at that point, unless he, somehow, managed to perfect it immediately, it would have been useless. In addition, he switched his focus on programming from chess to backgammon because "HiTech (the name of his chess program) was weak in board evaluation. I cannot see him using it if he, himself, thought it was that weak.  
  > **username_2**: Even as a blunder check, the computers at this time would be almost useless.  At most the computer could point out a one move tactic.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1  -  He was using the s/360.  NASA used them too. Calling them not helpful is misleading.  Hans moved to CMU when he continued his chess programs.  But none of that does not mean that he could not have gotten some useful help with the hardware we had then as the software was not as bloated and inefficient as now when speed and ease of delivery beats careful coding.  
  > **username_0**: @MikeJones  -- I would have to disagree.  I was there and the computers could do a lot more than a one move tactic.  I still hold that it could have  been very useful in endgames.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 I worked at the National Security Agency in 1988, and we had acres of mainframes. There was a hallway in the basement between all the mainfraimes that was in the "Guinness Book of World Records" because you could drive a semi tractor trailer down if for a quarter mile to give you an idea of how big we are talking about. All of them combined today are nowhere near as powerful as ONE PC. You are talking about almost 30 years before. Just because NASA had it then, it does not mean it was that strong relative to chess.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 --  IBM produced special computers for NSA.  Just because they are not as big as a PC now does not mean that you could not do a lot with them.  The model 91 that NASA had was good enough for their work.  And Hans worked in the Federal division so may have had access to the special models IBM only provided to NSA.  I know what I could do with the smaller ones I had access to and you could do a lot if  you programmed it well.  
  > **username_1**: Let me put this in perspective: The s/360 that he would have had access too was capable of only 34,500 instructions per second. By comparison, a 286 as 12 MHz did 1.28 MIPS, and that was a WEAK computer. A slow, but modern Intel i5 processor at 1.6 GHz does 65,770 MIPS. And it does not matter that they were special for NASA. They were still limited by the limits of technology at that time. Even if they had models that were 100 times as fast, they were not capable of being even remotely strong enough for chess. You need to be logical here.  
  > **username_1**: By the way, this is still 4 years after he won the World Championship, but go Google "how powerful were NASA computers in 1969" to get an idea about how weak they were. They, clearly, used THE best they had to send men to the moon, and there has been A LOT written about just how incredibly weak they are by today's standards. Even these were not strong enough to play even horrible chess.  
  > **username_0**: Yes.  They were 'weak' by todays standards but they could do a lot.  And he did not have to do everything.  Even some help on a couple of end games could have been enough to help him  win the championship.    I wish I had asked him before he moved to Florida.  
  > **username_1**: Sorry, but it is clear that you have no real conception of what they could do at that time relative to chess, which was next to nothing.  
  > **username_1**: You asked a question that you are not willing to take the answer for. I was a very early adopter of chess technology; I have owned a computer company for 25 years; and I have seen up close the best computers the government had to offer in 1988; and even then, they were not capable of strong play. I qualify as an expert.  
  > **username_3**: To add to @username_1's comments on computational power, we also hadn't developed many of the algorithms we now see as basic to computer chess. iirc quiescence search, PVS, and selective pruning (all extremely important to modern computers) were all created late 70s/80s  
  > **username_4**: As far as I can tell (from doing some Google searches...), ICCF world champions in the pre-computer era that had OTB ratings were generally in the 2000 to 2300 range. Berliner's final USCF OTB rating was 2354. He didn't have a FIDE rating but at his peak, estimates I've seen put him in the 2500 ability range.  By contrast, state of the art in computer chess at the time would have been something like MacHack VI, which was entered in a tournament in 1966 with a performance rating of about 1200.  I don't think he would have needed that kind of help.  ;-)  
  > **username_5**: Another data point: I first played Sargon (one of the first available on early PCs) in 1979 and it was easy to beat. That was a decade later. Computer chess at the time had bad horizon effects. They would tie themselves in knots just to push inevitable losses over their fixed-ply horizon. In the 1960s computer chess programs were little more than curiosities. Computer programs would recommend *bad* moves. His play would probably have degraded if he followed the advise of a computer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2021-04-15. Score: 5
  
  **Humans VS machines in the 60s-70s:**
  one way of putting this accomplishment in perspective is by regarding the results of the match between Bobby Fischer and MIT Greenblatt computer program (Running Mac-Hack, a software written by the great Richard Greenblatt himself) in 1977.
  
  I do believe that in 1977, Fisher was still very representative of what humans can do at their best at chess (even though he was retired), and so was the MIT Greenblatt computer for the machines. Still, Fischer obliterated the machine (3-0). This was 12 years after Hans Berliner won his title.
  
  Now going back to your question, it seems fairly obvious that the gap between Greenblatt's computer and any computer 12 years older is very considerable. However, it appears to me that the gap between Fischer and Berliner is not *that* big. This is enough evidence for me, that, as a master, using/trusting a computer in 1965 was completely inappropriate, if not to say suicidal.
  
  **From the programmer's perspective:**
  Berliner entered Carnegie Mellon in 1969 (4 years after his title) to do his PHD, where he came with the idea of programming HiTech, a chess engine. From Wikipedia:
  
  > It performed well, but only until it ran into transitions, that is, points in the game when the balance between the players changed. This led Berliner to conclude that HiTech was weak in board evaluation.
  
  He then gave up on solving chess and focused on another simpler problem: Backgammon. His first prototype was released in the early 70's. It took him nearly 10 years to achieve a strong level after he applied principles from fuzzy logic. Once again, Wikipedia:
  
  > in 1979, BKG 9.8 was strong enough to play against the ruling world
  > champion Luigi Villa. It won the match 7–1, becoming the first
  > computer program to defeat a world champion in any game [..] Berliner
  > states that the victory was largely a matter of luck, as the computer
  > received more favorable dice rolls.
  
  He then goes back to trying to solve chess, and re-develops HiTech (with other big names of chess software, like Murray Campbell) and he finally obtains a computer program with master strength (2500~ elo) in 1985.
  
  **Temporality of events does not line up**, according to his own words in the early 70's "*HiTech was weak in board evaluation*." It's only 20 years after his title, (which corresponds approximately to two eternities regarding advances in computer science) that he obtains a software having the strength of a master. Said software would have probably not won the world ICCF championship at the time, as it was still way weaker than the super GMs of the 80s.
  
  If he used a computer in 1965, either the computer was garbage and would have been completely ineffective, in which case Berliner would have been stupid to use it, or he had a 2600+ strong software at the time, and then faked the next twenty years of his life by developing 1800+ software to hide his secret.
  
  **TL;DR**
  No.
  
  
  ---
  
  