Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/21/10 at 19:06:56:
In drogo's defense, if we can't distinguish between human and computer play, then the top echelons of CC play will indeed be inhabited only by those who combine their skills with chess engines. Several players who have challenged chess.com's assertions about WGM Dembo here agree with this premise. Most of them believe that there can be no such test.
This is nothing in drogo's defense; it is a non sequitur. It bears nothing upon the question of the adequacy of the methods in question, which remain secret, and which have been challenged here without any adequate rejoinder.
By this logic, if reading Tarot cards were the only available method of guessing who were cheating, the paramount purpose of purifying correspondence chess would justify accusing people based on Tarot readings.
Start another thread if you want to wring your hands over the purity of correspondence chess. If you do, I will remark there that leading forum for it, ICCF, tolerates computer assistance, thousands of players participate there, and no one seems the worse for it or anywhere near as exercised about it as you are.
drogo wrote on 09/22/10 at 00:40:21:
ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 09/21/10 at 21:54:21:
Serious correspondence chess is for researchers. Researchers use tools to make their discoveries. Efficiency is a major aspect of productive research in a competitive setting. Computers are practically a necessity for competitive research (i.e. serious correspondence chess) nowadays.
You call them researchers, I call them monkeys.
My, my! It turns out that we do have a chip on our shoulder! Send a letter to ICCF, why don't you? Mount your stallion and start your crusade! But if you do, I suggest you arm yourself with a better weapon than the obscure numerology so far discussed in this thread.
One thing I am quite sure of, though, and that is that chess.com with its anonymous players, crappy interface and required viewing of flash ads is unlikely to replace
www.iccf-webserver.com anytime soon.
P.S. On chess.com Yelena Dembo outrates all other titled players by 200-300 elo? Truly?
drogo wrote on 09/21/10 at 14:08:57:
I am not aware of a public set of data. It's likely that the big names in online chess like ICC have their own statistics, but they won't make it public. Mainly because they don't want cheaters to adapt their cheating methods.
Well then, the logic of the accusers becomes rather circular, doesn't it? Rather like that used at Salem, where those accused as witches weren't permitted to know the evidence against them for fear they would cast spells on their accusers. Or like Joe McCarthy, who never revealed his list of names of "known Communists" in the State Department, lest this alert them to his investigation.
Say, I wonder if there are any "known Communists" on chess.com?
Pages: 
Yelena Dembo on Chess.com (Read 99764 times)
