too weak too slow?

I have a hypothesis.

A player above the 1st category KNOWS to play chess. Most of them are too slow, but with enough time they can find the same moves that Carlsen finds in his best games.

So I imagined one experiment that could prove it. Carlsen would play a match against an expert player, but Carlsen would only have the normal time of the classic chess and the expert would have long 30 days to make his move! The expert would be guarded not to use any engine aid or move the pieces, the idea is to simulate an environment as if the expert was sitting in the chair for the 30 days! Also, there should be a motivational factor for the expert because there is no point in having 30 days if you are not really looking for the best move. Then some threat or some monetary reward should exist.

What do you think? Is the strength of chess just a matter of speed of analysis?

Give any decent chess player enough time, and they will be able to come up with some really top notch moves.  Thats what i enjoy so much about Daily Chess.  I actually get to experience what its like to be good.

This is silly for multiple reasons.

First of all, Carlsen doesn't figure out much OTB... it's a result of a lifetime of work and experience in chess. Carlsen, like most players (even us) uses the time OTB to double check his intuition and make accurate calculations.

---

In any case, you can test this for yourself. Get a ~2500 strength engine and play correspondence style against it. Let it think for 3 minutes every move. Don't cheat, and you can find out how well you can do.

A little tip... it's easy to think you could solve a tactic if you had 30 days. You could simply analyze as deep as possible every legal move for example. But in a game most positions can't be solved by calculation. Most positions you do some relatively minor calculation and then make your best judgement.

I have some draws against rybka 2 and I won Fritz 13 in classical chess time control. About 7 hours sit in the chair trying evade all possibility from clever engine who always get in some tactics I cant see...

NOW, if I can think by 30 days I have time for analysing strategic play too... I'm not talking about any player, but a expert player who have enough chess culture and know what to do but not HOW to do, that HOW is the thinking part of strategy

Uh huh. That's nice.

Kramnik lost vs a lesser version of Fritz in 2006, and was given access to an opening database, and was allowed to see the computer's display while it was still in book.

I guess you're either better than Kramnik or not telling the whole story. I guess we'll never know which it is... lol.

Since you think you're better than 2006 Kramnik (that was the year he defended his world championship title against Topalov) why would you waste time playing computers? You could make a lot of money winning major chess tournaments.

I dont know, maybe that is because my personal computer was not a supercomputer?

I was just trying to say I had some experience in play against strong opponent taking it seriouslly thinking really in each move, but no by 30 days in each move.

It wasn't a supercomputer, it was just a normal computer... and a normal computer that is over 10 years old by the year 2019.

"Deep Fritz version 10 ran on a computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kramnik#Deep_Fritz_match

Kasparov could win against GM in simultaneous games (with a clock). So I guess this pretty much proves your idea is wrong.

Simultaneous is not 30 days by move, man...


I would like test my hypotesis, but I cant think 8 hours by day... I'm not young more, and I dont have that time too... What I'm talking here is one is able to understand a postion after 30 days thinkg about. That transform chess in science instead sport... You can analysis using thinking methods... etc..

What about allow move the pieces while studying the postion? Interesting, no? I was thinking, I dont know if someone can think  about a game by 60 months (if that game last by 60 moves).  My experiment is not reallistic, no one would make that... My hypotesis use a big: AND IF'...' WOULD '...' happening? And, in philosophical sense, I think so!

I think your hypothesis is true for some type of players. There are players that are not capable of deep analysis and their play in rapid and classical doesn't differ much. And there are players like you and me ... ;-)