user20776: Way back when, Hans Berliner worked for IBM.  I met him at an IBM data center one time, but he worked in the Federal division and just used the center for a demo. I had known him from the Washington Chess Divan earlier.
I know he had done a computer program to help with chess. It was the first as far as I can tell. This was in the days when the s/360 was ruling the market, and there were no PCs, and pdp8s and the like were not up to the job although they did cause IBM a lot of grief by their cheap price and what they could do for small special-purpose jobs.
The question I always had was did Hans use the IBM computers to assist his game when he won the ICCF world championship? I know that Hans was very good as a player,  but was he so good that he could have won the ICCF world championship without the computer's help? It is certainly possible, but having a really good computer analysis on some tough positions had to be helpful.

user18312: Humans VS machines in the 60s-70s:
one way of putting this accomplishment in perspective is by regarding the results of the match between Bobby Fischer and MIT Greenblatt computer program (Running Mac-Hack, a software written by the great Richard Greenblatt himself) in 1977.
I do believe that in 1977, Fisher was still very representative of what humans can do at their best at chess (even though he was retired), and so was the MIT Greenblatt computer for the machines. Still, Fischer obliterated the machine (3-0). This was 12 years after Hans Berliner won his title.
Now going back to your question, it seems fairly obvious that the gap between Greenblatt's computer and any computer 12 years older is very considerable. However, it appears to me that the gap between Fischer and Berliner is not that big. This is enough evidence for me, that, as a master, using/trusting a computer in 1965 was completely inappropriate, if not to say suicidal.
From the programmer's perspective:
Berliner entered Carnegie Mellon in 1969 (4 years after his title) to do his PHD, where he came with the idea of programming HiTech, a chess engine. From Wikipedia:

It performed well, but only until it ran into transitions, that is, points in the game when the balance between the players changed. This led Berliner to conclude that HiTech was weak in board evaluation.

He then gave up on solving chess and focused on another simpler problem: Backgammon. His first prototype was released in the early 70's. It took him nearly 10 years to achieve a strong level after he applied principles from fuzzy logic. Once again, Wikipedia:

in 1979, BKG 9.8 was strong enough to play against the ruling world
champion Luigi Villa. It won the match 7–1, becoming the first
computer program to defeat a world champion in any game [..] Berliner
states that the victory was largely a matter of luck, as the computer
received more favorable dice rolls.

He then goes back to trying to solve chess, and re-develops HiTech (with other big names of chess software, like Murray Campbell) and he finally obtains a computer program with master strength (2500~ elo) in 1985.
Temporality of events does not line up, according to his own words in the early 70's "HiTech was weak in board evaluation." It's only 20 years after his title, (which corresponds approximately to two eternities regarding advances in computer science) that he obtains a software having the strength of a master. Said software would have probably not won the world ICCF championship at the time, as it was still way weaker than the super GMs of the 80s.
If he used a computer in 1965, either the computer was garbage and would have been completely ineffective, in which case Berliner would have been stupid to use it, or he had a 2600+ strong software at the time, and then faked the next twenty years of his life by developing 1800+ software to hide his secret.
TL;DR
No.

user19877: Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".
He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.
My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.
I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.

20776: <p>Way back when, Hans Berliner worked for IBM.  I met him at an IBM data center one time, but he worked in the Federal division and just used the center for a demo. I had known him from the Washington Chess Divan earlier.</p>
<p>I know he had done a computer program to help with chess. It was the first as far as I can tell. This was in the days when the s/360 was ruling the market, and there were no PCs, and pdp8s and the like were not up to the job although they did cause IBM a lot of grief by their cheap price and what they could do for small special-purpose jobs.</p>
<p>The question I always had was did Hans use the IBM computers to assist his game when he won the ICCF world championship? I know that Hans was very good as a player,  but was he <strong>so</strong> good that he could have won the ICCF world championship without the computer's help? It is certainly possible, but having a really good computer analysis on some tough positions had to be helpful.</p>
 18312: <p><strong>Humans VS machines in the 60s-70s:</strong>
one way of putting this accomplishment in perspective is by regarding the results of the match between Bobby Fischer and MIT Greenblatt computer program (Running Mac-Hack, a software written by the great Richard Greenblatt himself) in 1977.</p>
<p>I do believe that in 1977, Fisher was still very representative of what humans can do at their best at chess (even though he was retired), and so was the MIT Greenblatt computer for the machines. Still, Fischer obliterated the machine (3-0). This was 12 years after Hans Berliner won his title.</p>
<p>Now going back to your question, it seems fairly obvious that the gap between Greenblatt's computer and any computer 12 years older is very considerable. However, it appears to me that the gap between Fischer and Berliner is not <em>that</em> big. This is enough evidence for me, that, as a master, using/trusting a computer in 1965 was completely inappropriate, if not to say suicidal.</p>
<p><strong>From the programmer's perspective:</strong>
Berliner entered Carnegie Mellon in 1969 (4 years after his title) to do his PHD, where he came with the idea of programming HiTech, a chess engine. From Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It performed well, but only until it ran into transitions, that is, points in the game when the balance between the players changed. This led Berliner to conclude that HiTech was weak in board evaluation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He then gave up on solving chess and focused on another simpler problem: Backgammon. His first prototype was released in the early 70's. It took him nearly 10 years to achieve a strong level after he applied principles from fuzzy logic. Once again, Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>in 1979, BKG 9.8 was strong enough to play against the ruling world
champion Luigi Villa. It won the match 7–1, becoming the first
computer program to defeat a world champion in any game [..] Berliner
states that the victory was largely a matter of luck, as the computer
received more favorable dice rolls.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He then goes back to trying to solve chess, and re-develops HiTech (with other big names of chess software, like Murray Campbell) and he finally obtains a computer program with master strength (2500~ elo) in 1985.</p>
<p><strong>Temporality of events does not line up</strong>, according to his own words in the early 70's &quot;<em>HiTech was weak in board evaluation</em>.&quot; It's only 20 years after his title, (which corresponds approximately to two eternities regarding advances in computer science) that he obtains a software having the strength of a master. Said software would have probably not won the world ICCF championship at the time, as it was still way weaker than the super GMs of the 80s.</p>
<p>If he used a computer in 1965, either the computer was garbage and would have been completely ineffective, in which case Berliner would have been stupid to use it, or he had a 2600+ strong software at the time, and then faked the next twenty years of his life by developing 1800+ software to hide his secret.</p>
<p><strong>TL;DR</strong>
No.</p>
 19877: <p>Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".</p>

<p>He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.</p>

<p>My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.</p>

<p>I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.</p>
