10882 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Because ICCF failed to come up with real human correspondence chess and still ignores demands for computerfree championships, I have decided to take over and found a group to run such events outside of ICCF.
LSS already has a "no-engine" tournaments section, why don't you just join?
Checking the "no-engine" validity is a royal pain, so it's best that no-engine tournament organizers aren't dispersed, in the first place.
Why LSS? Chess.com is bigger site (more members).
I want to put together community of serious turn-based (correspondence) players HERE.
I noticed that no-engine section on LSS is casual only. No titles, no championships. I disagree with such approach, because it is opposite: centaur chess is casual. So, no LSS. My point is valid correspondence championship without engines.
And here is the qualification tournament for XV. Correspondence World Championship.
The bottom line is that ever since engines have been invented, cheating has always been and will always be rampant. People can easily manipulate thresholds for t3 matchups to avoid suspicion, or blunder check all of their moves with engine analysis/flip on an engine in a critical position for a few moves. The ICCF has basically given up on a war that's impossible to win, and I can't fault them for that. Also, with the level of preparation that goes into correspondence these days and the amount of engine lines that are in databases (for example, if you use ICCF games as precedents for how you play, or if you prepare a line with an engine a while ago and it comes up in a game) the lines have become really blurred on who is actually playing, the engine or the human?
For me at least, correspondence has turned into an important way to check my opening preparation for OTB play and to see where I'm going wrong, even though I know that once I reach a high rating I'll be playing almost entirely against centaurs. It seems to have died as a pure chess format in itself when engines came along - brilliant tactics that were a staple of correspondence play for many years now attract suspicion of engine usage, and people live in fear of sacrificing because their opponent will probably be silicon-assisted for the 5-10 moves it takes to get out of a tough situation. Along with many others, I've basically given up on the prospect of correspondence chess as a competitive and serious game and I see it as a training ground where I can see how long my opening preparation lasts against centaurs.
If I weren't sure I can filter out cheats, I wouldn't do it of course.
ICCF has given up in 1992, because they thought (1) human input would remain significant and (2) engine play couldn't be distinguished from human play. Both these points were valid back then, but they became obsolete as time went on. ICCF refuses to reflect that. It is like athletic organization allowing doping.
Manipulating thresholds is not that easy and effective how people may think and blunder-checking very often produces similar results as blatant cheating. Computer's move creates computer-like line, which usually cannot be logically avoided. For a patzer, it is almost impossible to emulate excellent human play. Who might get away with it, it is an excellent human player who blunder-checks very seldom and cautiously like a naturally excellent athlete who uses banned substances very seldom and cautiously. In this case however the natural talent and human hard work prevail over stupid silicon abuse and it is a trade-off: conscience for slightly better results. In 99.9 % this is not the case. Cheating patzers rely on the silicon completely and cheating mediocre players tend to become lazy and use silicon more and more as time goes on.
Experiments with T3 show that influence of opening lines is not significant.
But my main point has been to filter out most potential cheats pre-emptively. People will have to play under real names as usual in real competitions. Detected cheats will be banned for life and effectively prevented from sneaking back. People caught cheating in the past anywhere will not be allowed to play. In bordeline cases, when cheating is probable but not sure beyond any doubt, suspects will not receive their trophies, norms or prizes and will receive warning and/or temporary suspension instead.
experiments with T3 ? can you elaborate ?
i would think with longer time controls opening theory will become more important, no ?
1/27/2015 - Boris Spassky vs Arnulf Westermeier, Germany, 1982
by Xystus-Hong a few minutes ago
Rules re Asking for Resignation
by Mister-Horse a few minutes ago
aggressive opening for black
by lolurspammed 2 minutes ago
by Reb 7 minutes ago
Sotftware: HIARCS, Chessbase, Macs etc.
by Chicken_Monster 8 minutes ago
Has a top grandmaster ever played on until they were checkmated?
by SocialPanda 11 minutes ago
how to win at 1 minute games even if you're not that good at chess
by KirbyCake 12 minutes ago
by loneranger78 14 minutes ago
Best offline tactics
by Skeleize 17 minutes ago
e3 opening's name?
by cfvb 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!