From the NM Alex Dunn correspondence chess column 'The Check is in the Mail' in the <April
1986 Chess Life and Review>
Dr. Robert Reynolds, a master in both postal and over the board play, is a psychologist
at Fordham University. In the following letter, he offers a personal view and a challenge to computer programmers: "The question
of how strong chess computers might be in correspondence chess may be important to both the development of computers and to
the understanding of human chess skill. Thus far, the emphasis has been upon developing main-frame computers which calculate
as quickly as possible. This strategy has lifted a few computers as high as 2200 in over the board play. In the case of postal
chess, one might suppose that a match between Belle, HI TECH or Cray Blitz and a human would favor the analytical power of
the computer. However, we need not worry much about it. Adriaan de Groot showed some 20 years ago that the higher levels of
human chess are distinguished by quick sight of the board and analysis of fewer total moves. Search heuristics and general
positional evaluation become more and more important for humans at just that level of playing strength where computers emphasize
long-winded algorithmic calculation. Until there is a new generation of computers capable of parallel-processing, current
computers will rarely be able to calculate far enough ahead (even if given three days) to reach a decisive outcome. I agree
with one of my postal opponents, U.S. co-champion Ken Plesset, that 'Chess is 90 percent tactics, but the [other] 10 percent
is more important.'
"My prediction is that present-day computers would be no better in a relative
sense at correspondence chess. In postal terms, this would be a rating between 1650 and 1750 [JLJ - the postal chess rating
system was different at this time]. But if anyone still believes that computers are a threat - or even a possible aid at the
higher levels - <I will wager $500 on a match of four games, played under the same rules for human
postal correspondence chess>. My opponent may consult books, but he cannot have access to or seek adjustment from
auxiliary programs of either the mechanical or human variety. Whatever the result we would certainly learn from such a match."
- <Sincerely, Robert I. Reynolds.>
From the <September 1988>, NM Alex Dunne postal chess column 'The
Check is in the Mail: The Creative Edge' in <Chess Life and Review> magazine:
"Robert Reynolds is a name the postal world should keep in mind. We will probably be hearing
much more about this gentleman from New York City. Robert recently won the 6USCCC with a powerful 13 1/2 - 1/2 score...
"Reynolds further states, 'Over two years ago I made a challenge in this column
that I'd play any of the top ranked computers in a correspondence match under standard rules. I have not received an acceptance
and probably never will. The challenge is a way of highlighting the relative weakness of computers. One might think that an
average of three days per move would favor the computer with its ability to rapidly process large numbers of moves. Not so.
Even computers dedicated to chess do not gain much in depth with an extra three days of analysis. The tree of possibilities
grows so fast that the gain would amount to only five or six half moves. At the end of its analysis, the computer must stop
and evaluate. Unless a decisive position has been reached, nothing much will have been gained.'
[photo of Reynolds, with caption 'Robert Reynolds declares creative human 'minimaxing'
superior to the electronic variety practiced by computers.' ]
Here is computer analysis of Reynolds-Timmerman at 6 minutes per move:
Prof. Robert I Reynolds (2565) - Gert Jan Timmerman (2725)
[D01]
WC15 Final ICCF, 01.11.1996
[Rybka 3 ]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Nf3 h6 5.Bf4
5...e6= 0.21/20
[Rybka 3 : 5...c6 6.e3 g5 7.Bg3 Nh5 8.Be5 Nhf6 9.Bd3 Bg7 10.0-0 Nxe5 11.Nxe5
h5 12.a4 Qd6 13.Qe2 a5 14.Rac1 Nd7 15.Nf3= 0.04/20 ]
6.Nb5= 0.00/22
[Rybka 3 : 6.a3 Nh5 7.g3 c5 8.Be3 cxd4 9.Qxd4 Nhf6 10.Bg2 Bc5 11.Qd2 Qb6 12.Bxc5
Nxc5 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Ne5 0-0 15.Rab1= 0.21/20 ]
6...Bb4+ 0.02/22
7.c3 0.02/21 Ba5 0.22/20
8.b4=
-0.24/21
[Rybka 3 : 8.Qa4 Bb6 9.h3 0-0 10.e3 Ne4 11.Bd3 a6 12.Na3 f5 13.0-0 c5 14.Nc2 Bc7 15.Qa3 Bxf4 16.exf4 Qc7
17.g3 b6 18.Ne3= 0.22/20 ]
8...Bb6= -0.15/20
[Rybka 3 : 8...a6 9.a4 Nh5 10.Be3 Bb6 11.Na3 a5 12.g3 0-0 13.Bg2 axb4 14.cxb4
c6 15.0-0 Qe7 16.Qb3 Nhf6= -0.24/21 ]
9.e3 =/+ -0.31/23
[Rybka 3 : 9.a4 a6 10.Na3 a5 11.b5 Qe7 12.Qb3 0-0 13.e3 Nh5 14.Be2 Nxf4 15.exf4
c5 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.Qxb6 Ng6 19.Qxc6= -0.15/20 ]
9...a6 -0.34/21
10.Na3 -0.34/20 Ne4= 0.06/19
[Rybka 3 : 10...a5
11.b5 Qe7 12.Nb1 g5 13.Be5 g4 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Nfd2 Qf5 16.Na3 Nf6 17.Qc2 Qh5 18.Be2 e5 19.0-0 0-0 20.Rae1 Bf5 =/+ -0.34/20
]
11.Qc2 =/+ -0.31/21
[Rybka 3 : 11.Nd2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.b5 Qe7 15.Nc2 Nf6 16.Bf3
Ne4 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.0-0 Rd8 19.Qe2 f6 20.Rad1 Bd7 21.h3 e5 22.Bh2= 0.06/19 ]
11...g5 -0.31/19
12.Be5 =/+ -0.42/21
[Rybka 3 : 12.Bg3 h5 13.Bd3 h4 14.Be5
f6 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Qe7 17.Qg6+ Qf7 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nxg5+ Ke7 20.Bf4 fxg5 21.Bxg5+ Kf7 22.g3 h3 23.Bf4 a5 24.Nc4 axb4
25.cxb4 Ra4 26.a3 Nf6 27.Rc1 =/+ -0.31/19 ]
12...f6 -0.28/19
13.Bg3 -0.47/21 h5 -0.29/20
14.h3 =/+
-0.47/19
[Rybka 3 : 14.h4 g4 15.Nd2 Nxg3 16.Qg6+ Kf8 17.fxg3 c6 18.Bd3 Qe8 19.Qxe8+ Kxe8 20.e4 Bc7 21.Kf2 Kf7 22.exd5
cxd5 23.Rac1 Nb6 24.Rhe1 Bd7 25.Nb3 e5 26.Bc2 Na4 =/+ -0.29/20 ]
14...Nxg3 =/+ -0.31/20
[Rybka 3 : 14...Qe7 15.Nc4 Nxg3 16.Nxb6 Nxb6 17.fxg3 Bd7 18.a4 a5 19.Be2
axb4 20.a5 bxc3 21.Qxc3 Nc8 22.0-0 c6 23.Nd2 Nd6 24.Bd3 0-0 25.Nb3 e5 26.Nc5 e4 27.Bc2 Nf5 =/+ -0.47/19 ]
15.fxg3 -/+ -0.91/17
[Rybka 3 : 15.Qg6+ Kf8 16.fxg3 Qe8 17.Qxe8+ Kxe8 18.c4 c6 19.Kf2 Bc7 20.Bd3
Ke7 21.c5 e5 22.Nd2 h4 23.gxh4 e4 24.Be2 =/+ -0.31/20 ]
15...Nf8 =/+ -0.47/18
[Rybka 3 : 15...Qe7 16.Bd3 c6 17.0-0 -/+ -0.91/17 ]
16.e4 -/+ -0.98/19
[Rybka 3 : 16.0-0-0 a5 17.b5 Qd6 18.Kb2 Qxg3 19.e4 c6 20.e5 Bd8 21.exf6
Bxf6 22.Bd3 g4 23.Ne5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Nd7 25.hxg4 Qxg4 26.Rde1 Qg5 27.Qe2 Nc5 28.Bc2 Bd7 =/+ -0.47/18 ]
16...a5 -0.78/18
17.e5 -/+ -1.35/20
[Rybka 3 : 17.exd5 exd5 18.bxa5 Rxa5
19.Qe2+ Kf7 20.Nc2 Ng6 21.Qf2 Re8+ 22.Kd2 Kg7 23.Bd3 c5 24.Rhe1 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 cxd4 26.Nfxd4 Ne5 27.a3 Nxd3 28.Kxd3 Bxd4 29.cxd4
Rb5 30.Ke2 Rb2 31.Kf1 -/+ -0.78/18 ]
17...axb4 -1.35/20
18.Nb5 -1.35/19 bxc3 -1.35/17
19.exf6-+
-2.22/19
[Rybka 3 : 19.Bd3 Bd7 20.Bg6+ Ke7 21.Nxc3 fxe5 22.Nxe5 Bxd4 23.Nf7 Qb8 24.Nxh8 c5 25.0-0-0 Qxg3 26.Rxd4
cxd4 27.Ne2 Qe3+ 28.Kb1 Rc8 29.Qb2 Nxg6 30.Nxg6+ Kf7 31.Nxd4 Kxg6 32.Nf3 Kf5 33.Re1 Qd3+ -/+ -1.35/17 ]
19...Qxf6 -1.84/18
20.Bd3?-+ -3.37/19
[Rybka 3 : 20.0-0-0 c6 21.Nd6+
Kd7 22.Nf7 Rg8 23.Qxc3 Kc7 24.N7e5 Nd7 25.g4 Nxe5 26.Nxe5 Qf2 27.Qb2 Qf4+ 28.Kb1 Qe4+ 29.Bd3-+ -1.84/18 ]
20...g4 -3.07/17
21.Nh4 -3.73/17 Kd8 -3.15/18
22.Rf1
-3.97/18 Qg5 -3.79/16
23.Ke2 -4.71/16 e5 -4.71/16
24.Qb3?
-#1/3
[Rybka 3 : 24.Qxc3 e4 25.Bxe4 dxe4 26.Qb4 Qe7 27.Qxe7+ Kxe7 28.Nf5+ Bxf5 29.Rxf5 c6 30.Re5+ Kd7 31.Nc3 Ra3
32.Nxe4 Bxd4 33.Rd1 Rxa2+ 34.Ke1 Ra1 35.Rf5 Rxd1+ 36.Kxd1 b5 37.Kc2 Ke7 38.Kb3 Nd7 39.Rf4-+ -4.71/16 ]
24...Qd2# 0.00/0
0-1
From the <June 1986 Chess Life and Review> Postal Chess column 'The
Check is in the Mail' of NM Alex Dunne:
Thanks go to our readers for their impassioned, logical, statistical, pro-human and computer-friendly
responses to the February 1986 'The Check is in the Mail' column. The attitudes towards that column, a piece dealing with
the use of computers in postal play, ranged from 'the death of postal chess' to 'cybernetic symbiosis.'
From the large number and the heightened tone of the responses, it is obvious
that the issue of computer use is, like computers themselves, here to stay. Here is what some of our readers have to say...
Dave Long (Falls Church, Virginia): 'The final defense seems to be the nature
of the postal player, who probably will have but little interest in using computers.' ...
Stephan Gerzadowicz from East Templeton, Massachusetts: 'But WHY would anyone
use a computer? To see 'his' rating go up? To win prize money (so he could buy postcards for the machine)? To win a trophy
(so he could photograph it with the computer)? Why play chess or tennis? Why run or lift weights? What does Mr. X do for exercise
- pay the kid next door to run five miles for him?' ...
An anonymous reader (Mr. Y?) from Long Beach, California, sent in what is perhaps
the best analysis of the problem. Mr. Y. favors allowing computer aid. His argument runs as follows: If a player moves up
into a new rating class with the help of a computer, then the players in his initial class will be rid of him. His new opponents,
on the other hand, will be stronger and will be better equipped to battle him and his machine.
Thus we meet a new tragi-comic figure: the <'computer
junkie'> trapped in a chess world where, to stay afloat, he must rely on his machine because he is not strong enough
to make his own moves...
