Baumbach is talking about OTB chess though. Silman suggested that the OTB world champ would have such a superior understanding of chess that they would win handsomely against the correspondence world champ at correspondence chess.
Nothing to do with concentration or other pragmatic factors - a "superior understanding of chess".
Engine assisted?
Then how good your engine is!
Some people have 192 cores Stockfish, 440 million nodes search per second!
A 5 years-old-kid can be a correspondence champion if his dad bought him above machine!!
Engine assisted?
Then how good your engine is!
Some people have 192 cores Stockfish, 440 million nodes search per seconds!
A 5 years-old-kid can be a correspondence champion if his dad bought him above machine!!
You'd think so, but I don't believe it's true. I understand that the best engine-assisted correspondence players are the ones that know how to direct their engine analysis efficiently. However, I expect they've also all got ridiculously powerful machines.
Engine assisted?
Then how good your engine is!
Some people have 192 cores Stockfish, 440 million nodes search per seconds!
A 5 years-old-kid can be a correspondence champion if his dad bought him above machine!!
You are ignorant, and let's leave it at that.
You don't need a silicon monster to compete at ICCF, or any other major correspondence organization, with a time control of 10 moves/ 40 days. The requirements are completely different.
Because I have evidence. I saw a few 1200 people putting GrandMaster in front of their names.
When asked , they said, they got ICCF grandmaster! 
I play both Correspondence and Over the Board. Let me tell you, they are two very different beasts, and require two very different sets of skills.
Think of Correspondence Chess like Limit Hold'em and Over the Board as No Limit. When you play limit holdem, you have to play tight. Bluffing isn't going to work. If you are dealt 7-3 off suit in limit holdem, you are under the gun, and you do anything other than fold, you're an idiot! In No-Limit, especially tournaments and you are low in chips, you might try to bluff. If someone calls your all in, they probably have high cards, and unless they have a high pair, you probably have two live cards and a chance. With Limit, at least half the table will call you and you have no chance.
In correspondence, when your position is lost, you might as well do the equivalent to folding, which in chess is resigning. In over the board play, where time is limited, you might be able to bluff your way to a draw or victory with a concealed trap given that they have minutes, not days, to figure out the situation.
Even if neither player uses a computer, like an ethical player on chess.com (doubt even half of them are ethical), there still is very little chance at bluffing. Give it up if you are lost. There is far more of a psychological factor to over the board chess.
It is also hard to trust ratings in correspondence chess. Those that cheat, and I know you are out there, have inflated ratings and those that don't have deflated ratings. So very few ratings are accurate, and I would wager the true strength of any correspondence player is either 200 points above or 200 points below their actual rating, depending on which side of the spectrum they are when it comes to cheating. Some correspondence sites allow computers, which is an even different game, but for those that don't, like chess.com or USCF Correspondence Chess, everyone is either inflated or deflated by about 200.
Engine assisted?
Then how good your engine is!
Some people have 192 cores Stockfish, 440 million nodes search per second!
A 5 years-old-kid can be a correspondence champion if his dad bought him above machine!!
If you just play engine moves in centaur games, you will get spanked.
And having a large number of cores is meaningless if you do not have the memory to support using them (and last I checked, SF only supported up to 128-cores, but I haven't checked to see if they have removed that restriction in the last few years since very few places in the world have computers with that many CPUs).
"My dad bought me a $10M computer so I could win a correspondence chess game" - I'm sure that happens all the time!
SF support up to 512 cores, 192 cores , 440 Mnodes/s is not from my guess, it is from someone who owned that computer.
SF support up to 512 cores, 192 cores , 440 Mnodes/s is not from my guess, it is from someone who owned that computer.
http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/engine-parameters
You do not know what you are talking about.
It was 2015 post, Dont argue with me , with googling here and there , guess knowledge or hearsay.
For detail information, check current stockfish on wikipedia or ask the stockfish programmers directly. Here is our group.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/fishcooking
In the pre-computer era, the best cc players tended to be 2000-2300 otb players.
I actually agree with Silman. The best OTB players understand the game better than cc players. But they rarely have the patience for it.
SF support up to 512 cores, 192 cores , 440 Mnodes/s is not from my guess, it is from someone who owned that computer.
http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/engine-parameters
You do not know what you are talking about.
It was 2015 post, Dont argue with me , with googling here and there , guess knowledge or hearsay.
For detail information, check current stockfish on wikipedia or ask the stockfish programmers directly. Here is our group.
So, I link you the actual documentation for SF, where the engine parameters state it is limited to 128 threads (meaning the most it will use is 128 cores - since you obviously know nothing about computers), and you link a Wikipedia article ... with an un-sourced note. /facepalm
So, I decided to look at the actual source code (which you do not know how to read), and you are correct that they increased the maximum limit to 512 (without updating the documentation - not a good practice for an open source project):
ucioption.cpp: 64
o["Threads"] << Option(1, 1, 512, on_threads);
However, as I stated previously, the computers that can support that many cores are incredibly expensive, and require a substantial amount of memory to support (which is also not cheap at that level). So, worrying about someone having a 128-core computer, much less a 512-core computer, is a bit asinine.
I dont argue without knowledge, findout someone who is currently using 192 cores machine. He is currently donating his machine in fishnet.
Waste of time to response.
Bye.
Engine assisted?
Then how good your engine is!
Some people have 192 cores Stockfish, 440 million nodes search per seconds!
A 5 years-old-kid can be a correspondence champion if his dad bought him above machine!!
You are ignorant, and let's leave it at that.
You don't need a silicon monster to compete at ICCF, or any other major correspondence organization, with a time control of 10 moves/ 40 days. The requirements are completely different.
Because I have evidence. I saw a few 1200 people putting GrandMaster in front of their names.
When asked , they said, they got ICCF grandmaster!
There are a total of 166 ICCF Grandmasters who are currently active.
Including inactive ones, they are 365.
From the active ones, nobody is rated OTB at 1200. Many of them have no OTB rating at all, while the majority are rated from 2000 to 2200 FIDE.
The new ICCF World Champion (he is clear first in the pendding final, and it will be WC for the third time- a record) Aleksandr Surenovic Dronov, has no FIDE rating. He got his Grandmaster title back in 2005, apparently not because of engine usage!
I guess you are talking about FIDE Arena Grandmasters (AGM).
Many of them are OTB patzers.
I know about AGM title and its joke. I was saying 1200 mean extremely basic rating.. He put his name as GM--- in "TCEC chat" in about 2 years ago. I just said according to what I saw in real life.
What about FIDE GM Paul Keres? He won the world title in correspondence chess.
I have FIDE rating 2265 and I play correspondence chess as well.
Moreover, FIDE GM Neuris Delgado plays correspondece chess too.
My point is that correspondence chess is a fantastic activity that helps to understand chess better. Of course, like the Greek philosopher Aristotle recommended, everything needs to be done in the right amount. I think to play ONLY correspondence chess is a mistake, like to play ONLY blitz. It is well known that people who ONLY play blitz do not perform well in FIDE tournaments.
Oh yeah! Umph! Rark! Ooh! Yeah!
It really depends. If both players do it professionally then they can sit at the table as equals and punch it out. It's all about preparations and training. An OTB player spends only a fraction of his time playing competition. On most days he's training. So it's not to say that correspondence players put in much more analysis.
In Jeremy Silman's review of Hans Berliner's book, he writes:
"My angst towards postal chess began when I read that many postal aficionados honestly felt that a postal World Champion would beat an over-the-board World Champion in a postal game. The postal caste never seemed to realize that their understanding of chess as a whole was so far below any over-the-board World Champion’s as to make the argument virtually laughable."
I don't know if Jeremy is referring to engine assisted chess here or not, but it may be that he wrote this long enough ago that engine assistance would not have been helpful.
Anyway, would the correspondence world champ beat Magnus at correspondence chess, if Magnus took it seriously? I suppose both cases of engine assistance being allowed/ not allowed should be considered.
I have never heard of a correspondence match between a top GM and a top correspondence player - and I've googled it - does anyone know of any?