TopNotch wrote on 12/31/07 at 23:37:09:


You are not alone in this view.

Markovich wrote on 12/31/07 at 17:45:40:


Maybe it shouldn't annoy me so, but it does for all the reasons I cited and perhaps a couple more that only occured to me after reading your post. For one thing it bugs me that a player 1750 OTB can more or less back door his way to a FM IM or GM titile by playing engine assisted etc etc Correspondence Chess, somehow that sort of thing diminishes, at least for me, what a Chess Master title is supposed to represent.      

Perhaps if ICCF used more appropriate titles, rather than ones that feel and sound so approximate to Over the board ones, then I too wouldn't care how they derived their moves.

A few such modified ICCF titles could be:

ICCM = International Correspondence Computer Master
ICEM = International Correspondence Engine Master

If the above titles are a bit too long, how about something like:

IAM = International Assisted Master

Do not get me wrong Mark, my aim is not to belittle or paint all CC players with the same brush, as for sure there are many legitmately strong players who enjoy this form of the game.

Nevertheless  experience has shown me that many who initially take up CC do so primarily due to a lack of success at OTB play. The fact that such players often go on to earn titles that carry a fair amount of prestige, despite in many cases knowing very little about chess, I find more than a little disturbing. 

Another solution would be for the ICCF to consider NOT awarding Master titles at all and instead adhere strictly to a ranking system similiar to that of Lawn Tennis or some such. 

Master titles and what they represent are best left to the realm of OTB chess, but it is possible that I am alone in this view.

Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a prosperous new year.

Regards,

Toppy

MNb wrote on 12/31/07 at 15:51:04:



I wrote that using computer is amoral. Not CC. And now more than 90% players use computer in CC. And most of them don't know nothing about chess That's all.

Oww BTW : in 2008 is so many 2700 players not because inflation of rating, but because today we have much more strong players then, let's say in 1970. Only ignorant can't see that.

I have not visited this thread recently, not due to a lack of interest but rather due to a lack of email notifications which make it difficult to monitor multiple threads actively. But enough of that.

Not surprisingly the debate has become rather controversial, but at the end of the day no matter how much we rationalise it, euphemise it, or reduce it by sophism, it stands to reason that all in all if you are a weak over the board player then you are weak period. End of story. Compensating for this weakness, whatever it maybe, with computer aided analysis etc. is a whole other matter entirely. 

In fact it just occurred to me that CC is a lot like what adjournments used to be back in the day, remember those awful things. For those not in the know, or too young to remember, and adjournment usually came about after 40 moves in 2 hrs followed by 20 moves in 1 hour had been played, if there was no result the player to move sealed his move and the game was resumed at a time to be determined by the arbiter. What a freak show that was, it meant that if you adjourned with a Bishop and Knight vs King and did not have any technique then lucky you, all that needed to be done was to consult the relevant  endgame tome or some such. A real test of skill that.

Further to this analogy, there was a famous draw by Botvinnik against Fischer at an Olympiad I think, where it was reported on good authority that Botvinnik had adjourned in a dead lost position to be resumed the next day. The Russians desperate not to lose to an American had a team work all night on the position trying to salvage it, and when I say team, I don't just mean the team at the olympiad but also back home in Moscow where other top gm's were also burning the midnight oil and telexed their findings back to the Olympiad team the next day.

Long story short Botvinnik got his draw the following morning and the rest is history. To this day Fischer is still bitter about that game, and when he was asked in an interview a long time after the fact, to list his ten strongest players of all time guess who was missing    

Interestingly Botvinnik was sleeping, while his seconds, thirds and fourths stayed up all night searching for a miracle which they eventually found. Botvinnik was presented with the fruits of their labor the morning of the game and simply had to familiarise himself with some key lines to achieve the desired result. Fischer on the other hand did not have access to such immense quality and quantity of, in this case, human resources, and so rightly felt hard done by asserting that such behaviour went contrary to the spirit of what a true sporting contest should be. Thank goodness adjournaments are a thing of the past.   

Certainly CC has a right to exist but I have found that many who practise it often sneakily try to favorably compare their rating strength with those of OTB players and this is one of my pet peeves and a big no no in my book. Such comparisons are blatently misleading simply because an OTB rating is achieved by a player's individual chess skill and talent, while a CC player's is not.

CC chess, Thematic tournaments, and Advance Chess are all interesting variants but none are a true measure of a chessplayers overall individual skill and never should be misconstrued as such. Having said all that they have a right to exist and serve to further advance the theory of the game in a scientific though not sporting way.

Toppy

Postscript: MNb I don't fully understand your Formula One analogy, it seems out of place in the context of this discussion. By all means elaborate as I am sure you will. 

Ender wrote on 12/26/07 at 19:18:11:

Not as long there are enough people who think otherwise.
What surprises me is that nobody has caught me yet on an obvious weak spot. I wrote two times about formula-1 races. There is a clear similarity with corr chess: the role of technique. If even TN is not smart enough to see this - he certainly has not omitted it out of kindness - I must bring this up myself.
My friend, only two weeks ago I read an article in Dutch magazin Schaaknieuws about cheating with Pocket Fritz in patzer tournaments. On this level otb-chess might die earlier than corr chess. While it is true that Dutch federation NBC has been hit hard - it lost 50% of its members between 1985 and 2000 - it seems that it recovers.

Ender wrote on 12/26/07 at 19:18:11:

And Kasparov loses to Deep Blue. But Kasparov plus Rybka on a personal computer having 5 days on average will beat Deep Blue.

Ender wrote on 12/26/07 at 19:18:11:

Ask Kramnik and Topalov. It is only a matter of time before some clever guy installs some program in his watch with a wireless connection to a strong engine at home.


Ender wrote on 12/26/07 at 13:27:11:

Such naivity. The fact that it is forbidden does not mean that it is impossible.

TopNotch wrote on 12/26/07 at 16:23:28:

Hey Top, you are losing your punch. You used to be a lot sharper. Try harder next time, OK?

Ender wrote on 12/26/07 at 19:22:20:



Like I said. I know guy who is IMC, and in real chess he is not even 2100 player. I also know from him, that he uses MAINLY engines to make moves. So You can be succesfull in CC using computers and in reality being patzer. I crushed this guy in many many blitz, rapid and few classical games. I know also other guys who are weak and have succes in CC. But not because they 'deep uderstandinga of game' but because of 'deep understanding how computer works'.
It's imposible to play like 2800 in CC if in normal chess you are patzer.
I'm chess instructor and i know it's imposible. People who can't solve problem using only his brain can't be good player.
And engines become stronger and stronger. That's why I feel CC are dead. RIP

HgMan wrote on 12/26/07 at 18:29:51:


If You play ONLY CC we don't have nothing to talk about, because how you can judge differences in CC and OTB being only CC player?
I played CC for short time (i think about 2 years) and i know how much different it is to normal chess.
I don't like CC anymore, because majority of players use engines. It have nothing to do with they playing strenght.
It's amoral. They must have many complex  to do that.
What is so great with playing computers?
Do You think Mike Tyson can fight with Terminator? Or Maurice Greene can run faster than Ferrari?
Even Chuck Norris can't.



HgMan wrote on 12/26/07 at 18:29:51:


Like I said : cheating in OTB chess is marginal problem. I played many big tournaments, and NEVER EVER see anybody cheating. I also analysed my OTB games with engines, and correlation of moves was about 40/50%. In my CC games about 80-90 (and only because I don't use engine;).
You quote one article about cheating in OTB chess. I can prove You CC players use it much much much more times. Just run coupele of recent   random CC games with Fritz/rybka and some other engines. I guarantee You correlation will be bigger than in couple random recent OTB games (even from GM practice).

That's all. If You like to play CC it's your choice. But that's maybe because you don't play normal chess at all. CC don't have the same spirit, and OTB You play with player made form flash and bones. Not with silicon, carbon or cryptonite monster
Cheers.

PS
Sorry for my BAD english.

MNb wrote on 12/25/07 at 03:45:59:



Tell me how many cases of computer cheating you know OTB? I play 5-6 classic tournaments /year. And i NEVER EVER meet computer cheater OTB. I also played few years ago CC (i'm abou 2180 in CC) and i stopped, baceause i played most of my games against fritz/junior/hiarcs etc with patzers who never achieved my understanding of game and my play strenght. I bet 99% of players play ONLY with BIG computer assistance.

MNb wrote on 12/26/07 at 04:28:58:



LOL. At OTB chess you CANNOT use computer during game. That;s the main and BIG difference. So don't tell that computer influence in OTB and CC is on the same level.