Better than an engine: Leonardo Ljubicic (2/2)

by Martin Fischer
3/1/2016 – In the second part of his interview with ChessBase, Leonardo Ljubicic, winner of the 28th World Championship in Correspondence Chess, speaks about time-trouble in correspondence chess, strong grandmasters in over-the-board chess who also excel in correspondence chess, the importance of opening preparation, and his chances against Magnus Carlsen in a correspondence match.

ChessBase 14 Download ChessBase 14 Download

Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more!

Along with the ChessBase 14 program you can access the Live Database of 8 million games, and receive three months of free ChesssBase Account Premium membership and all of our online apps! Have a look today!


Leonardo Ljubicic

Martin Fischer: You mentioned that time-trouble was your biggest problem in over-the-board chess. How do you manage your time in correspondence chess? And is there really such a thing as time-trouble in correspondence chess – when you have 50 days for every ten moves?

Leonardo Ljubicic: On average, from Monday to Friday I spend about two or three hours on correspondence chess, but on Saturday and Sunday five or six hours are the rule. You need silence and concentration and entering the world of chess has become a great anti-stress therapy for me. My family has been most understanding and I dedicate my title to them.

But yes, amazingly, there is time-trouble in correspondence chess! If you overdo it and start too many games at the same time, either your performance will suffer or you won’t have enough time. You should choose your battles carefully!

Recently, there has been a new trend in OTB-chess: Many top-players – most notably World Champion Magnus Carlsen – do rely less on opening preparation and do not try to outprepare their opponents. Instead, they are happy to reach a playable position from the opening and then try to outplay their opponents later. Does such an approach work in correspondence chess? And how important is opening preparation in general?

Well, occasionally I come across grumpy comments from some players who complain that “today everyone can play chess by memorising lines and analysing with engines”. But I think the process you describe is a natural response to the fact that the opening nowadays is explored better and better and that theory expands all the time. Because “better” players feel that they have more chances to outplay their opponents in “unexplored” territory they tend to steer away from theory.

However, opening preparation is – at least the way I practise and understand it – of utmost importance in correspondence chess. I do not prepare for a particular tournament, but for each and every single opponent of mine and this preparation begins long before the game. I first try to get hold of as many of his games as possible which I then sort according to openings by preparing two opening trees: myopponent_white.ctg and myopponent_black.ctg.

Then I look at the games in detail, while keeping in mind that most good CC-players get better with time. I try to find weak spots in their repertoire (which are rather rare today) and try to guess whether there is a realistic chance to exploit these weaknesses. Will they really play a particular opening or will they try to spring a surprise on me?

Such serious opening preparation was the basis of my wins against Papenin and Straka in the 28th World Championship. I annotated the game against Straka in the first part of the interview but here’s the game against Papenin:


In general, I try to play “healthy” openings – openings that have not been analysed to death and offer White realistic chances to get an advantage. With Black, I restrain myself to extremely safe lines that still offer winning chances should White go wrong. I do not understand how one can just play for a draw though I know that at the level of today’s correspondence chess you often have no other option with Black.

You play correspondence chess and you have a general interest in chess. Do you read chess books and do you follow top tournaments on the internet?

Correspondence chess, work and family hardly leave time to study chess in a more general way. But in my youth I enjoyed studying chess very much. Two books were particular favourites of mine: Modern Opening Theory by Drazen Marović (which I read in Croatian) and B.A. Zlotnik’s Types of Positions in Middlegame (which I read in Russian). I also regularly followed the British magazine Chess, the Russian magazine Skakhmatny, and our Croatian Šahovski Glasnik. And let us not forget the “Chess Informants”: for me, every issue was pure gold.

Today, I sometimes follow live-broadcasts on the internet, in particular if my brother-in-law is playing (my sister married GM Robert Zelčić). But if I follow these games with an engine running, I do get frustrated about the “erratic” play.

In an article published a few months ago correspondence chess GM Arno Nickel proposed new rules for correspondence chess to avoid the “draw-death” of the game. In the final of the 28th championship about 87.5 percent of the games ended in a draw. What do you think – are the many draws a threat to correspondence chess and does correspondence chess need new rules?

I read Arno’s proposal thoroughly. He is one of ICCF’s best and I have great respect for him, but I do not see his proposal as a solution to the problem of too many draws. He basically proposes to change certain scoring rules but this would mean to change some of the basic goals of the game. In my view this is not true chess. Perhaps an interesting variation, but not chess any more. Incidentally, I feel the same about Chess960.

I admit though that my position here is neither very constructive nor optimistic. I think we are indeed getting closer to the point when chess is solved (at least in today’s top correspondence chess). But this is what we correspondence players do – we try to solve chess by searching for the best moves and by expecting the greatest resistance from our opponents. This is different to over-the-board chess which is essentially mental wrestling. However, we reached our “goal” of solving chess much faster than expected. Now, we should face the truth and learn to accept it. And ask ourselves “what to do next?” (when chess is solved).

I checked the FIDE-ratings of the players who played in the 28th World Championship of Correspondence Chess. Seven players are unrated and the other ten players have an average rating of about 2120. Correspondence chess obviously requires different skills than over-the-board play. But do you benefit from Correspondence Chess in over-the-board chess?

It might be different for my colleagues, but my OTB-chess suffered when I got more and more involved in correspondence chess. In OTB-chess I was twice (1980, 1981) U15 county champion and in my twenties I became a Candidate Master. My FIDE-rating peaked at 2230 and I once defeated IM Branko Rogulj in the Open Croatian Championship in 1993 with black in 25 moves, probably the highlight of my over-the-board career.


So, while I was not exactly a rising star, I do have a decent chess foundation. However, intensive use of engines in correspondence chess did affect my abilities to conduct OTB-games. I overlooked simple tactics and in zeitnot I was weak and slow. My strategical abilities, on the other hand, got better and analysing with engines made me consider much more candidate moves. This process is very much like being handicapped in life: if your vision is hampered, other senses are sharpened. I stopped playing OTB-chess almost completely two decades ago. I do play a game or two per year for my club if they miss a player for league matches, but I lose almost every game “after achieving very promising positions”.

A number of great OTB-players also played Correspondence Chess, e.g. Paul Keres. And some of the Correspondence Chess World Champions have also been quite good in OTB-chess, e.g. O’Kelly, Ragozin, or Purdy. In recent years Swedish Grandmaster Ulf Andersson has been playing correspondence chess with some success. But do you know current top OTB-players (with a FIDE-rating of, let’s say, 2650 or more) which are good correspondence players?

Paul Keres

In fact, several strong OTB-players now play at the ICCF. I believe the most prominent is Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran (2680+). However, I do not think there are many more who are that strong in OTB-chess. There are quite a few players with a rating of 2400 to 2550, though. Recently Croatian GM Bogdan Lalić joined the ICCF and started playing in the finals of the Croatian Championship.

You are trying to make correspondence chess more popular in Croatia. What goals do you have?

Two of my colleagues and I want to revitalize the CC scene in our country, as it suffered a serious crisis after our former CCA-President fell ill and had been inactive for several years. So far, we’ve been quite successful, gaining 20 odd new members, restarting a cycle of national championship tournaments, as well as beginners’ promo tournaments. All of our members are also very active in ICCF tournaments. And we have attracted strong OTB-players: apart from GM Lalić whom I have already mentioned above, IM Darko Feletar IM Nenad Dorić are also both very active, gaining ratings and experience fast.

I accepted to become ICCF National Delegate for Croatia and this puts additional pressure on my already tight schedule – my job is to handle contacts with the ICCF, to coordinate competitions and members, and to maintain our website ( Very demanding and time consuming. But luckily the ICCF officials are very motivated and always ready to help which makes my life much easier.

I hope that one day I will be able to let new and motivated members take over.

Do you believe that the abilities you need in Correspondence Chess are useful in everyday life?

Perhaps not in everyday life, but some of the abilities I gained playing CC have definitely helped me in my business career: seeing the big picture, project managing, sound logic, etc.

Chessplayers like to speculate how top players of the past would fare in today’s tournaments. However, I would like to know whether you think you would be a favourite if you played correspondence chess against Magnus Carlsen?

In a two-game match, I’d say the chances would be about equal but only if Magnus devoted a couple of hours to each of his moves. Anything less and I would be a strong favourite.

Thank you for your time, your insights, and the interview!

Martin Fischer has been tournament director on the server for many years. He plays in Germany for the club of Johanneum Eppendorf, in the season 2013/14 in Germany's second league.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

d107112 d107112 3/4/2016 02:21
@Dragon Mist Thanks very much.
pbdhanish pbdhanish 3/3/2016 04:38
Recentky, OTB GM Krishnan Sasikiran has lost two games in CC: and ! So modern CC and OTB chess are different animals.
Dragon Mist Dragon Mist 3/3/2016 04:18
@107112: here you can read some more about it:
d107112 d107112 3/3/2016 02:13
Great article. The first part of this article mentioned "sampled search" as a Fritz 15 feature. I haven't been able to find any information on the web or in the Fritz documentation on this feature. Does anyone have any information.

Thanks in advance.


malfa malfa 3/2/2016 10:59
Ansii, in an OTB game, of course: I am talking about chess ;-)
Anssi Anssi 3/2/2016 04:02
"If a CC player meets an OTB player, the CC player is dead."

In a OTB or CC game?! OTB GMs often get crushed in CC games againts CC GMs. These are totally different sports.
Mendheim Mendheim 3/2/2016 01:01
Some disputable points:
1.) "I think we are indeed getting closer to the point when chess is solved (at least in today’s top correspondence chess)." (L.L.)
No. A high percentage of draws does not mean solving chess. It just means balance of power, but I doubt, players would be able to exactly explain the complete mechanism of this balance. There is still a lack of theory in openings and middlegame (even many exceptions in endgame). And executing computer moves in a correspondence chess games does not necessarily include deep understanding of all their implications. Usually players do understand only a small part of it. (Look at deep analysis by Huebner, Kortchnoi, Kasparov a. o. - I think, there is a much deeper understanding of chess in their comments, though there are of course more mistakes in otb chess.)
2.) About the difference between correspondence chess and otb chess:
That difference was far smaller at the time before the rise of computers. The elite of correspondence chess masters was definitely better in otb chess in the past, and many strong players left correspondence chess because of the computers. Now, how about making correspondence chess a bit more attractive for (strong) otb players by strengthening the 'human factor'? I would like to suggest a correspondence world championship like this:
1st stage correspondence games (let's say 11 players double round robin);
2nd stage: a) classical otb games (round robin) by the same players;
2nd stage: b) advanced chess games (round robin) by the same players, all with the same laptop and engine just only for blunder check, no databases and no big machines.
The 2nd stage could be held within 10-12 days at any attractive location, classical games before noon and advanced chess games on afternoon.
The World Champion would be the one with the highest total score out of 40 games (20 cc games, 10 otb games, 10 ac chess games). The basic idee could also be introduced for the candidates etc.
3.) About Lasker chess rules like proposed by CCGM Arno Nickel: "Perhaps an interesting variation, but not chess any more. Incidentally, I feel the same about Chess960. " (L.L.)
Objection! We should not define chess in such a narrow sense. Chess is much more than the latest FIDE Laws of Chess (btw, even FIDE considers Chess960 as chess). In the end chess is just what people like to play with chess pieces and their characteristic moves. The history of chess is much older than its modern rules.
malfa malfa 3/2/2016 12:15
If a CC player meets an OTB player, the CC player is dead.
Mawin Mawin 3/2/2016 06:51

"I think we are indeed getting closer to the point when chess is solved (at least in today's top correspondence chess)."

This could be remedied by a simple rule change in correspondence chess, by allowing players to relocate (swap) pieces on the first row before play begins. The rules are like standard chess except that the players may, before play begins, swap places of the king + queen and another piece except the rooks. Thus, when the king is swapped (relocated), the other piece (the relocatee) ends up on the king's square. When the queen is swapped, the relocatee ends up on the queen's square. One restriction is that the bishops mustn't end up on the same square colour, and the king cannot become a relocatee (i.e. swapped by the queen). The castling rules are simple and derive from Chess960. King and rook end up on their usual squares. The only difference is that the king can make longer leaps than usual (or shorter, or none at all). (The normal castling rules are only a special variant of Chess960 castling rules.)

Read more here:
Justjeff Justjeff 3/2/2016 02:59
Correspondence and OTB are as different as checkers as chess. At OTB time controls with no computer assistance, Carlsen (or anyone with an OTB rating of 2700) would score very heavily against correspondence players, including those with OTB titles.

And under correspondence conditions, sure, they'd get their revenge. Conditions are everything.
digupagal digupagal 3/2/2016 02:17
what makes you guys think that carlsen will win? Corres. chess is different. Magnus's inability in Theory will be exposed in Corres. chess more than OTB
Vernunft Vernunft 3/1/2016 11:35
Yes, and the current actual world champion could play rings around this guy. APPLES AND ORANGES DERP DERP
Anssi Anssi 3/1/2016 10:44
Dragon Mist, yes, I know, I am also from Finland :-) You mentioned earlier about some email list. Can you please add me to that list too:
Dragon Mist Dragon Mist 3/1/2016 09:56
@Karbuncle: hats off to you. Great article!

@Anssi: IIRC, Lehikoinen considered a) quitting his job and b) moving permanently to an island in Adriatic to increase time for postcards to reach him so he had more time to analyse, all prior to the start of the tournament he won in the end :)
Karbuncle Karbuncle 3/1/2016 09:47

They mean if Magnus played Leonoardo in a correspondence game, not a live game. In the ICCF arena, FIDE GMs do not have any meaningful advantage over the experienced cc player.
Anssi Anssi 3/1/2016 08:40
Btw, Lehikoinen, who won the ICCF World Championship in 2011, recently crushed a very strong OTB GM Sethuraman in a corr. game.
Anssi Anssi 3/1/2016 08:33
Vernuft and horius, you are comparing oranges to apples, or 100 sprint to the marathon. These are different sports; analytical chess vs practical chess. I think Negi wrote a very good preface to recent opening book:
horius horius 3/1/2016 08:23
hahaha yeah what makes him think he'd be a strong favorite? Magnus would beat this guy if he had 5 minutes for the whole game
Vernunft Vernunft 3/1/2016 07:31
What's with correspondence players' delusions about having any chance against real world champions?
Karbuncle Karbuncle 3/1/2016 07:04
I posted my own article describing what ICCF is like from a member's perspective. Hopefully this will shed some more light for those wondering what it's all about and the current state of affairs: