Body: <p>On most websites, such as chess.com and lichess.org, computers aren't allowed, but when playing under ICCF rules engines are allowed. With the increase in strength of engines  especially from the neural network approach, starting with AlphaZero, what do humans have to add? Are ICCF correspondence games simply one 3500 machine vs another 3500 machine nowadays? What do humans add to these high-level correspondence games?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-27T22:31:55.003Z
Comments.Text: There is a bit of chess intuition to be added still but mostly it is about choosing the right tools for the right job. Picking an engine that understands the current position well, deciding which line to analyze how deeply, which of the engine's suggestions look more promising than the others. So arguably it is more about understanding chess engines these days, rather than understanding chess itself.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-28T10:28:27.517Z
Comments.Text: @Herb: That's the typical "time dependent question" just (oops, time-dependent) referred in Meta :-) Having read fairly recent (son of oops) first hand reports on correspondence chess, I have the impression a bit of human intervention is still needed. This would make up for an interesting scientific experiment: does Carlsen+computer reliably fares better than chimpanzee+computer?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-28T11:37:36.310Z
Comments.Text: First note: I don't think this should be closed. The referenced question dates back 8+ years, in which time the progress in computer chess has been tremendous.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-28T11:40:22.497Z
Comments.Text: @HaukeReddmann Not sure; in the computer chess community (like on Talkchess) I believe there's a consensus - how informed I'm not sure - that given the drawrate is 90%+ anyway (even in human + eng vs eng), the human element ends up being a statistically insignificant benefit.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-28T13:20:47.497Z
Comments.Text: @BrianTowers since you took executive decision on this - what's the general policy regarding such questions where the (old) question/answer are now outdated? Is it to update the question and provide a new answer, within the same (old) question?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-28T13:40:31.957Z
Comments.Text: @MobeusZoom If, due to new knowledge and/or technology, an answer to an old question becomes wrong/inaccurate then the best course of action is to add another, more correct, answer. Editing the question is wrong and gratuitously editing someone else's answer to your version of the truth is wrong.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-29T03:48:54.780Z
Comments.Text: This might be the better target: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19107/kasparov-said-humancomputer-beats-just-computer-what-does-human-bring-to-the-t
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Tags: <engines><online-chess><correspondence-chess>
Title: What is the human influence in modern correspondence chess?
ThreadText: # What is the human influence in modern correspondence chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-11-27)
  
  On most websites, such as chess.com and lichess.org, computers aren't allowed, but when playing under ICCF rules engines are allowed. With the increase in strength of engines especially from the neural network approach, starting with AlphaZero, what do humans have to add? Are ICCF correspondence games simply one 3500 machine vs another 3500 machine nowadays? What do humans add to these high-level correspondence games?
  
  **Tags:** engines, online-chess, correspondence-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: There is a bit of chess intuition to be added still but mostly it is about choosing the right tools for the right job. Picking an engine that understands the current position well, deciding which line to analyze how deeply, which of the engine's suggestions look more promising than the others. So arguably it is more about understanding chess engines these days, rather than understanding chess itself.  
  > **username_2**: @Herb: That's the typical "time dependent question" just (oops, time-dependent) referred in Meta :-) Having read fairly recent (son of oops) first hand reports on correspondence chess, I have the impression a bit of human intervention is still needed. This would make up for an interesting scientific experiment: does Carlsen+computer reliably fares better than chimpanzee+computer?  
  > **username_3**: First note: I don't think this should be closed. The referenced question dates back 8+ years, in which time the progress in computer chess has been tremendous.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 Not sure; in the computer chess community (like on Talkchess) I believe there's a consensus - how informed I'm not sure - that given the drawrate is 90%+ anyway (even in human + eng vs eng), the human element ends up being a statistically insignificant benefit.  
  > **username_3**: @username_4 since you took executive decision on this - what's the general policy regarding such questions where the (old) question/answer are now outdated? Is it to update the question and provide a new answer, within the same (old) question?  
  > **username_4**: @username_3 If, due to new knowledge and/or technology, an answer to an old question becomes wrong/inaccurate then the best course of action is to add another, more correct, answer. Editing the question is wrong and gratuitously editing someone else's answer to your version of the truth is wrong.  
  > **username_5**: This might be the better target: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19107/kasparov-said-humancomputer-beats-just-computer-what-does-human-bring-to-the-t  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  