herlocksholmes wrote:Dear maxsource,
You unfortunately placed your head into a hornets nest!
There are 2 main followings as far as i could ascertain. The first are those people who wish not to play over the board classic chess, but prefer to play correspondence chess with otb rules (that would NOT include the use of chessengines)
On the other hand you have the people who know that they are playing CORRESPONDENCE chess and that in the International sphere of correspondence chess the use of chess engines are allowed and are in fact encouraged. It is common knowledge that Ivar Behrn from Norway (A very recent World Correpondence Chess Champion uses Fritz for that purpose.)
In the middle sits our great site administrator "Greg Miller" - whom we all love dearly - that prefers the USCF rules that forbid the use of chess engines.
So it is up to you how you wish to play.
My experience has been that all the srong players at this site (2600+)use engine assistance in their games. Those games are of a very high standard and one can certainly learn a great deal from them.I prefer to play these opponents as they are nice folks and in genral refrain from participating in attacks launched against them by the so called "purists" (people against the use of engines). It is just I, who ever so often toss my toys in this regard.
As far as I am concerned, and in this regard i refer to my previous posts on the topic: It is not illegal to use chessengines in correspondence play, it is an accepted practise in the International Correspondence Chess Fraternity, Grandmasters use it, Correspondence Chess World Champions use it.
Just enjoy your chess and play as well as you can !!
Best Regards
Herlocksholmes
Sensible words. When I was studying for my USCF Local TD test, I noticed that the Rulebook freely allows all sorts of consultation in adjourned games, including consultation with stronger players and with computers. The rationale is that there is no way to prevent this, and there is no point in making a rule that can't be enforced.
There was even a question on the test about this: a player complains that his opponent consulted, during adjournment, with a much stronger player. There are witnesses that bear this out. What do you do? Correct answer: reject the complaint; nothing is wrong.
It seems very strange to me, then, that USCF takes a very different attitude concerning consultation and the use of computers in correspondence chess (CC). One would think that for consistency's sake, this would be permitted as much as consultation during adjournments. Certainly, it is even more difficult to enforce a rule against it. But no, for some reason, it's labelled cheating!
I believe that the ICCF rule, which is permissive and which is defended on the same ground that USCF defends its rule permitting consultation during adjournments, is much more reasonable.
I have a USCF Senior Master's title in CC (just plan Master OTB). I've played in a lot of high-level CC games, and I think it's a safe bet that most strong players are using computers. Almost never do you find people falling for tactical tricks, which would sometimes happen in the days before silicon assistance. The same goes for most 2600+ games being played on this site. (The ratings are inflated here: 2600+ here corresponds to 2300+ in ICCF or USCF terms.)
Further with regard to net-chess, I notice that many of the stronger players carry very high game loads. I can tell you, with a lot of experience to back it up, that the unassisted brain of a strong player is good enough to take on strong opponents in several games of CC chess at once, but not good enough to take on strong opponents 20, 30 or 40 games at once! It just takes too much time to do all that analysis. So unless you're in prison or something, it's very hard to play well in more than 10 or so CC games unassisted by silicon. Looking at the game loads of many high-rated plaers here, it's a very safe bet, in my view, that quite a few of them play with computer assistance. (There are a few exceptional players who can play many games to a high standard using only their own brains, so be careful before you draw conclusions about any specific player!)
By the same token, only very rarely have I encountered play that was only that of a machine. Almost always there is evidence that a real person is behind the moves. I doubt very much that many players simply let the computer make the decisions. What would be the fun of that? And if they do, so what? The real cost is theirs. At any rate, since it appears that there is some level upon which I am playing a human opponent, I am happy to play CC even though it appears to have become an exercise in finding the best moves with computer assistance.