32 Chess Life — August 2011 uschess.org

Correspondence Chess

How a gang of amateurs bested some of the strongest players on earthBy Howard Sandler, Ph.D. and the Chessgames.com World Team

Vietnamese woman living in Alaska, a lawyer from Toronto, a polymath from Ireland, an accountant from

India, a scuba diver from Brazil, an elec-trical engineer from Virginia, a biologistfrom Norway, and over 5,000 others makeup the Chessgames World Team. Theyare all chess fans who registered in Chessgames.com’s series of massive online con-sultation games known as the ChessgamesChallenge, that pits the members of thewebsite against famous grandmasters(GMs). Is it even possible that such aloose confederation of amateurs couldhold their own against strong opposi-tion? Apparently so: The World Teamhas a record of three wins, three draws,and no losses—all against very strongplayers, including a scintillating victory

over a correspondence world champion.To understand their success we need tolook at the role of computer analysis inthe rapidly-evolving world of correspon-dence chess (CC). After that, we will lookat critical moves in each game in anattempt to perceive how the World Teamcombined human intuition and com-puter evaluations to steer the games tovictory. Finally, we will speculate aboutthe future of CC as well as the Chess-games Challenge.

The format of the game is straightfor-ward. The GM makes a move within aspecified time control, usually two or threedays per half-move. The World Team votesdemocratically, with each member voting forone move. The move that gets the mostvotes is actually played on the board and

presented to the GM. Members can alsovote to offer or accept draws, actions whichrequire a simple majority to approve. Dur-ing the game, the World Team privatelydiscusses its strategy and analysis to helpreach a consensus on the strongest plan.Under this format, the World has played sixgames to date: two with correspondenceGM Arno Nickel (win, draw), and one eachwith 2008 U.S. Champion GM Yury Shul-man (win), 15th Correspondence WorldChampion 1996-2002 Gert Jan Timmer-man (win), 13th Correspondence WorldChampion 1989-1998 Mikhail Umansky(draw), and WGM Natalia Pogonina (draw).Let’s take a whirlwind tour through thesemodern masterpieces of collaborative chess.

Our story starts on August 18, 2006,when the Chessgames World Team played

uschess.org Chess Life — August 2011 33

its first move, 1. e4, against Correspon-dence GM Arno Nickel. Among his manysuccesses, in 2009 GM Nickel finishedclear first in the Simon Webb Memorial (acategory 15 event) against a field of 12 ofthe strongest correspondence GMs in theworld. According to the Chessgames co-founder Daniel Freeman, “Nickel waschosen as the first opponent preciselybecause of his success in defeating com-puters, especially his convincing victoryover the monstrously strong cluster com-puter, Hydra. We had every reason toexpect the World Team would lose, butlearn a valuable lesson in the process.”Mr. Freeman’s opinion soon changed,when he witnessed the World organizeitself and ultimately defeat Nickel: “Theword challenge had reversed its meaning:it wasn’t so much the members we werechallenging, it was the grandmasters!”

Controversy about computer use waspresent from the start, and as computerchess engines have become more andmore powerful since 2006, these com-plaints were voiced more loudly in eachsuccessive game. Even before the World’sgame with Nickel began, lengthy debatesemerged about whether computer assis-tance was necessary or appropriate. Whydid such strong reactions against com-puter-assisted correspondence gamescontinue to surface? Many team membersrecall the days when correspondencechess was played on postcards, so theirreactions were generational. Other mem-bers had played chess at online chessclubs, where computers are the lowestand most loathsome form of cheating.However, members more familiar withcomputer-assisted correspondence chesspointed out that the computer’s evalua-tions were often useless (in the openingphase), flawed (in closed positions), orartificially cut off (the horizon effect).They emphasized that to be successful ittook people to provide overall strategicguidance, and that blindly following thecomputer’s advice every move would notbe a winning strategy.

The World Team was fortunate to havea member known as “RandomVisitor” whoconsistently provided a backbone of analy-sis with his high-end equipment andengine. His analysis gave the World astrong start as it branched out in manyanalytic directions. There is an art tousing the computer well: winning requirescomputer analysis to be skillfully inter-woven with human intuition. All seriouscorrespondence chess players are accus-tomed to this art. The strength of the GMs(even Shulman and Pogonina, who do notordinarily play correspondence) lies intheir keen instinct of when to regard theirown judgments higher than the com-puter’s numerical evaluations. GM Nickelcommented, “Well of course, correspon-

dence chess and over-the-board chessare nowadays two extremely different dis-ciplines, more so than ever, becausecorrespondence players in contrast toover-the-board players have full access tocomputer engines and databases.”

Neither the World Team nor the GMsblindly played the moves generated bytheir computers. In fact, the key move inthe World Team’s first game against GMNickel was generated by human intuition,and only later was it checked thoroughlyby computers. Let’s take a look.

The World versus Arno Nickel“Brave New World”

White to play

It is White’s turn to play, and the move36. b4! quickly ended the game. (The pawnis immune to capture: 36. ... Qxb4? 37.Qd8 mates in a few moves.) Today’s chessengines are able to take advantage ofmulti-core computers to find moves like36. b4!, but in 2006, relatively few WorldTeam members had computer engines ofsuch power. Those that did were rarelyable to delve 10 moves deep, even inovernight runs. The move came as ashock to GM Nickel. After the game wasover, he praised the choice of 36. b4 overgoing into a complicated rook ending with36. Qd8: “Practically speaking, I think36. b4 was the stronger move, as it leftBlack without any defense, whereas therook ending would have complicatedthings unnecessarily, as the white rook isnot well placed in front of its own pawns.”(posted on February 11, 2007). GM Nickelhad kind things to say about the WorldTeam’s strength as well. Shortly afterthe game, he wrote “... in order to illus-trate on which level this very complicatedgame has been played, I would suggest,that White managed to play on a 2700-2800 level (ICCF Elo), while Black playedabout 200 Elo points weaker. ... One canonly congratulate the World Team forthis fine achievement.”

The Chessgames World Team’s secondgame was against GM Yury Shulman.GM Shulman was born in Minsk, Belarus,and moved to the USA in 1999. Since

that time, he has been one of the topAmerican players with an outstandingperformance at the 2001 World Open(tied first), and wins at the 2006 U.S.Open Championship and the 2008 U.S.Championship. He also is generous withhis time in support of U.S. chess at all lev-els. Once again, the outcome of the gamewas to be found in the many humanmoves that were made by both sides.

Although the World Team played“human moves” 17. ... f4 and 25. ... Qf7!(neither was the computer’s first choice),the move that perhaps best illustratesthe need for an overarching human strat-egy was played in this position:

Yury Shulman versus The World“Not a Care in the World”

After 35. h3

In this complicated position, the Worldplayed a move not even in the top tencomputer candidates: 35. ... h6! The movecreated a sort of Zugzwang (especiallywhen followed by another non-computermove, 37. ... Kh8) which GM Shulmanwas not able to overcome. Shulman tookhis defeat with grace and humor, sayingthat “You really did show wonderful team-work. When I heard about group forums… I was shocked how serious my opposi-tion is! … I will be happy to answer yourquestions, if you do not mind advice fromsomeone whom you beat so flawlessly.”

As GM Shulman noted, the World Teamhad an amazing ability to organize itselfin order to best use the talents of all of itsmembers. The development of a forumsystem for analyzing variations and dis-tributing the work of the computeranalysts, the willingness of those withchess engines to run analyses for thosewithout such resources, and the ability ofthe World to merge human input withcomputer output all combined to makethe team both effective and enjoyable.

The World had the white pieces againin its third game, this time against the15th World Correspondence Chess Cham-pion, GM Gert Jan Timmerman. Thepressure of playing against a player ofTimmerman’s reputation raised the inten-

+++++++kpp+pr+p+Pq+p+Q+P+++++R+PP++PK++++

+r++k++++ppp+l++++Pq+PpR+++n+++PL+PL+++Q+K

34 Chess Life — August 2011 uschess.org

Correspondence Chess

sity level of the game and presented achallenge to the ability of the World tomaintain its cohesiveness. Fortunately, anumber of team members stepped up tokeep the peace and all was well. Onceagain, it was a non-computer move by theWorld Team that allowed it to win theExchange in this position:

The World versusGert Jan Timmerman“Dead to the World”

After 30. ... Na6

White played 31. b4! (echoes of 36. b4!in the game against GM Nickel), a fasci-nating gambit in which the pawn can betaken three ways, and yet Black is des-tined to lose the Exchange. After 31. ...Nxb4 32. Bxe4 fxe4 33. Nd7 Rb7 34. Nc5, theWorld went on to win an interestingendgame. For those who have furtherinterest in this game, Tryfon Gavriel(kingscrusher) has an excellent videoanalysis on YouTube at youtube.com/watch?v=kXRV8AdQKCw.

The World Team’s fourth game was arematch against GM Arno Nickel. Thistime, however, Nickel understood justhow seriously he needed to take thisgame in order to win. Before the game, hewrote, “In my first game against the WorldTeam I just tried to play interesting chessand expected the success might comesooner or later. Now I know, the WorldTeam is excellently organized for deepanalysis, especially when it comes to abattle of bits and bytes. Here we can saythe World Team is a monster with 99eyes: it will find everything hidden deepdown in the ocean of variations. Time tochange strategies! I will eagerly wait forthe rematch and, with White, try to sur-prise the Chessgames World Team with acompletely new approach.”

If the World has an Achilles heel, it’s theopening phase. Perhaps exploiting thisvulnerability was the “new approach” thatNickel mentioned, and indeed, the Worldgot off to a rough start in the opening ofthe rematch. The opening seems to be aconsistent weakness because of the formatof these games. This may be because com-

puters are of little or no value in openinganalysis. It may also be because manypeople sign up for the game, vote for theirfavorite opening moves, and then disap-pear when the opening doesn’t go as theywished. These circumstances conspire tomake it very difficult for the World Teamto sustain a coherent opening strategy.

In the Arno Nickel rematch, one keyhuman move came early. In this position:

Arno Nickel versus The World“World Peace”

After 10. Be3

The Chessgames World Team’s deci-sion to mix things up with 10. ... h5!? waswise given that GM Nickel hoped to avoidcomplications so as to keep the draw inhand. By move 22 or so, however, manyon the World Team thought that the gamewas already lost. Fortunately, the Worldplayed another “human move” that provedcritical in eventually securing the draw.In this position:

Arno Nickel versus The World“World Peace”

After 23. Bb3

The Chessgames World Team offered totrade queens with 23. ... Qc5! Nickel couldnot allow 24. Qxc5 dxc5 where the pawnswould capture either a knight or a bishop.After the transition to an interesting queen,rook, and pawns ending, the World Teamagreed to Nickel’s offer of a draw accom-panying his 42nd move. After the game,Nickel wrote “... I did not want to take anyrisks, because it would have been a verybad feeling to lose a second time to the

World Team. This situation may explainsome of my moves—like h2-h3. ... I don'tknow if after that I really missed a win. Yousuddenly started to defend very accurately,and all my analysis ... led to either drawnor dubious positions.”

The draw in the second game with GMNickel was a wake-up call for many on theChessgames World Team, as it signaledthat the World was not invincible, espe-cially to a strong CC grandmaster whowas willing to take chances to win. Thisset the stage for the World’s fifth game,played against the 13th World Correspon-dence Champion, Mikhail Umansky. In1995, Umansky won the World Corre-spondence Championship, then in 2004he scored clear first (leading by two wholepoints) in the ICCF 50 Years World Cham-pion Jubilee, an invitational tournamentthat included all living former ICCF worldchampions. The World knew that it wasin for an arduous battle.

The World Team had the black piecesagainst a man known as “one of the mostcreative players in the world, similar toKasparov in CC,” according to GM TanselTurgut, one of the leaders in the 24thWorld Correspondence Championship.Umansky’s creativity kept the team offbalance as he played a number of non-engine moves, and the team did not keeppace. One member lamented, “we aredoing less and less thinking on our own,”as they increasingly relied upon the com-puters to just keep the position level. Thiswas perhaps exacerbated by the schedul-ing, in which the tail end of the Nickelrematch and the opening of the Umanskygame overlapped. The World was happy toaccept Umansky’s offer of a draw afterhis 36th move in this position:

Mikhail Umansky versus The World“It Takes All Kinds”

Final position

That happiness was short-lived. Thechess community was shocked and sad-dened by the news that Umansky hadpassed away in December, 2010.

The World Team’s sixth and most recentgame was played against WGM NataliaPogonina. Pogonina is not only among thetop women playing chess today, she is

r+qk+r+p+llpppp+nppn++++++NP+++NLP+PPPQ+PP+KR+L+R

+r+k++l++pppqppnr+p++Q+NP+p+LP+P+PPP+R+P++K+R++

++r+k++pl+p+p++Q+pLq+pP++RP++++P+PP++++K

+++++++kpnrp+r+p+p+pNp+P++nP+++LPPP++P+RR+K

uschess.org Chess Life — August 2011 35

also a great promoter of chess around theworld. This game got off to a rocky startover a disagreement between the WorldTeam and Pogonina’s husband/managerPeter Zhdanov, who saw no harm in beinga member of the World Team while thegame was in progress. This led to someharsh words being exchanged, includingZhdanov’s calling the World Team “space-bar masters”, a pejorative term that theWorld later adopted as a badge of honor.Happily, differences were reconciled andthe game got underway on schedule.

After that initial controversy, this gamepresented even more challenges to theWorld Team. First, the system of analy-sis forums had been stretched beyondits limits during the Umansky game underthe pressure of increasingly greaterreliance on stronger and faster engines.One member commented that the seriouscontributors might be jeopardizing theirmarriages. Second, Pogonina’s prefer-ence of a time control of one half-move perday undermined the World’s mainstrength: its ability to organize itself.Finally, the World Team struggled to inte-grate an influx of new members into itsongoing structure. Fortunately, teammember Jeremy Pflasterer developed cus-tomized online software to help, goingfar beyond the core features offered by thewebsite itself. Although many versionsof this idea had been proposed, Jeremystepped up and made the idea work, witha product called the Online Analysis Tree.It is a Wikipedia-inspired website thatanyone can edit by adding nodes andcomments to an analysis tree. It has thepotential to become a significant organi-zational tool for team play.

The game against Pogonina proved tobe odd in many respects. On the 10thmove, the votes for 10. Bf4 and 10. a4were exactly tied, 164 to 164. Here wasthe position:

The World vs Natalia Pogonina“Flat Earth Society”

After 9. ... Nbd7

Thankfully the rules had foreseen thispossibility: In the event of a tie vote, thesoftware breaks the tie by selecting oneof the moves at random. So the software

flipped a cyber-coin and played the stan-dard book move 10. Bf4, not thecomputer-preferred move 10. a4. Many ofthe top analysts on the World Teamregarded 10. a4 as the stronger move inthat position, and suggested that thiswas exactly what lost White’s openingadvantage. Despite the level nature ofthe game, the World still managed to gen-erate some excitement by playing 44. Nd6to reach this position:

The World vs Natalia Pogonina“Flat Earth Society”

After 44. Nd6

Although the rook on d1 is unprotected,44. ... Qxd1 was not the end of the World.Play continued 45. Ne8+ Kf8 46. Nxf6+ andPogonina soon was compelled to returnthe material with 61. ... Rxf2+, forcing adraw. The World Team recognized theperpetual check and offered a draw on thenext move.

The World Team is not composedentirely of diehards who devote hourseach day to the game. To the contrary,there are many enthusiasts who follow thegame less closely, and even those whodon’t believe that they have investedenough time to cast an informed vote.Nonetheless, even the non-voters identifywith the World and root fervidly for itssuccess. Member David Zechiel explained,“I’m sure there are many more like mewho enjoy the battle, check in often, andtake a small measure of pride when theWorld wins or draws. … I always enjoy itwhen a member of the team throws outa new idea for consideration: if the movehas potential, you can almost hear thegears grinding as computers all over theglobe search out the position looking forhidden nuance in the new move.” Thesenon-voting members play much neededroles, such as educating the World Teamabout the etiquette of offering a draw, orsummarizing the main ideas recentlyposted with flair and levity. When emo-tions run high, some members ratchetdown the intensity by injecting somehumor into the discussion. One mem-ber, OhioChessFan, created a hugenumber of song parodies during the Pogo-

nina game, like this spoof of The Who’s“Pinball Wizard”:

Ever since I was a young boy Hustling chess on the playground From Soho down to Brighton I was the best around I ain't seen nothing like him He’s the best by far That chess-playing-dumb kid Sure clicks a mean spacebar.

What is the future of computer-assistedchess? Many suspect that draws willabound as the computers get faster, theengines get stronger, and the humaninput becomes less important. There isanother view, however, that is bestexpressed by ICCF GM Tansel Turgut.His approach is to sacrifice a pawn, or theExchange, or both, for long-term posi-tional advantages. He then presses thoseadvantages to wins against those whofollow computer engines that struggle tounderstand these positions. It will be dif-ficult for a large team to vote againsthigh-ply computer lines, but if Turgut iscorrect, this will be the only way to suc-ceed against a strong GM who has a highlevel of positional understanding backedup by his or her own computer resources.

What lies next for the World Team?The latest GM to accept the challenge isArmenian-born grandmaster VaruzhanAkobian, now one of the strongest play-ers in the USA with a USCF rating of2705. The game is scheduled to beginon August 10, 2011, when Akobianmakes his first move. Anybody can reg-ister for the game right now, for free, atChessgames.com. With teammates likeOhioChessFan, RandomVisitor, and you,the World is ready to face whatever chal-lenges lie ahead. .

+Q++++++pk+pNlp++n++r+++P+q++NP++PK+++R++

r+lqrk+p+nlppppp+pn+++p+++PP+++++NPPPQLPPLPRN+R+K

Footnote / Acknowledgement:

This article could not have been written without the generous help of teammates like Marcelo Adaes,Larry Crawford, Mark Elzey, John Jerz, BenjaminLegaspi, Gerry McCarthy, Brian McLean, JeremyPflasterer, James Satrapa, Jim Schwar, Greg Sheehan,and Dave Zechiel. Special thanks go to Peter Spizzirriand Daniel Freeman for their support. This article isdedicated to the memory of the best teammate anyone could have: Rinus.

1. Game versus GM Nickel: chessgames.com/1426491

2. Game versus GM Shulmanchessgames.com/1443541

3. Game versus GM Timmerman:chessgames.com/1464744

4. Rematch versus GM Nickelchessgames.com/1501785

5. Game versus GM Umanskychessgames.com/1531174

6. Game versus WGM Natalia Pogoninachessgames.com/1589895