kevinfat wrote on 03/10/11 at 02:34:30:


The only site that doesn't allow computers is the uscf. ficgs, iccf, iecg, lss, netchess, and all the rest do.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 08:28:28:

That you can be a very sensible guy if you want to.
I agree completely with you.
Now just remind: when I am discussing all kind of gambit lines, I am always wondering: would I lose with them if I tried them in corr. chess? 

TalJechin wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:02:23:


I think a better analogy is an OTB tournament where people are allowed to use computers as they're playing. 

IMO correspondance games when allowing engines in this day and age aren't competitive in any sense. Maybe they are like writing a story, but there's no competition in it.

I don't believe in a good cc player vs a bad cc player when both players have Rybka left on for as long as possible and the only inaccuracies they make are when they don't agree with Rybka's first choice.

whatteaux wrote on 03/10/11 at 07:27:59:

That's the crux of this method. On chess.com there are a lot of people with really absurd ratings (now the corrected them a bit - but there were people with 3.200!). How can that be? Are they cheating? I say "NO!" within the above formula (which is the same for chess.com), because they surely analyse their openings well with books, databases and the comp (if the position is known, it should be allowed!), analysis sample games ("might be variation"), make a tree of them and then play their moves seemingly without the comp. Once they are beyond the opening with a stable plus, they don't need the comp assistance anymore.

Despite I play on chess.com, too (mostly Thematic Tourneys - to test the chesspub.variations!) I think that it's much easier to simply allow all assistance. There is a lot of discussion about cheating - but where does opening analysis end (what if I already had the line analised years ago?)

"Free the engines!"