From my point of view USCF and other organization ( such as IECC, CCLA, APCT) created a lot of confusion by not allowing computer assistance  for the analysis of the correspondence games. It is interesting to see that this rule is enforced in all USA chess organizations. On the other hand ICCF, which is the main international correspondence chess organization does not have such a rule, and experts agrees that it is legal to use computer analysis for the correspondence games. There is an excellent article about it on Internet by J. Franklin Campbell at http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm . From my point of view, rules which could not be strictly reinforced does not have any sence and will cause only confusion and complains. After all game of chess is only governed by the rules of chess and in most positions objectively strongest  moves can be found ether by human or computer analysis. In fact I would like to argue that combination of both is the right way to go for the correspondence chess (or server based turn-by-turn chess, like on chess.com). Turn based chess with 3 or more days for a move were allways an art of chess analysis. In fact using computer engines can make it much more interesting and deep then it was before, by discovering new possibilities, which previously were shadowed by human prejudice and misconceptions. If used correctly, computer assisted analysis, can help even a beginner player to understand chess deeper, by looking for the patterns, understanding why the moves player was considering are wrong and developing chess intuition. Of course, mindless copying of computer generated moves will not give any benefit, not in terms of understanding the game, not in terms of the results. The main reason for the later is that computer will spend a lot of time on considering useless lines, which will be rejected immediately by a strong player. Only because of superior intuitive evaluation of the position humans were able to compete against computers for so long over the board. By quick  elimination of non-promising lines a combination of a strong player and engine "blunder check" analysis will be always superior to purely computer analysis. From this point of view I would like to initiate on this server a "freestyle" chess tournaments were all kind of resources are allowed (including outside human help) and the only rules are objective rules of chess. I would like also to comment on the "outside help". Perhaps in the era before the Internet it was possible to track all strong local players and in the small community it is possible to catch a "cheater" who would consult with other player about a game in the progress. This rule came from the over the board chess, were such consultation will be even more obvious. But with global Internet chess community it is again virtually impossible to track such an outside help. And I would like to repeat one more time. Rules which can not be reinforced must not be the rules on the first place. I would like to welcome everyone to join and create "freestyle" tournaments, which is in my opinion is the only way to eliminate "cheating" created by the bad rules.

.... post much too long to read.

Players who compete in ICCF events are the top notch Correspondence chess players in the world. They are able to play with the aid of a computer because they are so good. For the majority of amateurs, playing with the aid of a computer in an optimal way means doing exactly what the computer says nearly exclusively. Where is the fun in that?

 

The reason I play correspondence time controls is that my chess playing time is generally not contiguous. This means I can't sit down and play a whole game unless the time control is blitz, or perhaps G/15 and on a really lucky day G/30. There's very little opportunity for me to play chess at a tournament pace. However, the correspondence time controls allow me to play tournament pace, i.e. a few minutes per move up to as much as 15-30 minutes in crucial positions, without having to have 4-6 hours at a time on one game. If I used a computer, I would lose the excercise of preparing for tournament like thinking where the computer aid is not allowed. 

 

I don't believe that playing alongside a computer -- essentially watching it play -- will help a beginner improve nearly as much as playing the game themselves, making mistakes, identifying their mistakes, and learning how to corrrect them. 

pheeww... what a lengthy read. i agree with loomis

I play on ICCF, and never, ever used a computer for my games. (where is the fun on that???).

I suggest you set up cyborgchess.com and see how much patronage u get, just kidding.  But seriously i  am against the idea even while playing turn based ches i have never used the analysis board in any of my game.

The correspondence play is not a tournament play, where you spend only several minutes per move. And if you want to become a stronger player you have to learn the art of the chess analysis, sometimes spending hours on just one move. And it is not for everybody, especially if you do not have an endurance to read a long post :). But analytical work is one of the best way to improve your chess game, but you have to enter your own moves first and only after you did it check for blunders using computer and learn from your mistakes. The main problem is that people just start computer analysis and then blindly follow it lines. In this way your learn nothing. But if you just want to play blitz or fast games and do not have patience for the analytical work you will never get a breakthrough in your understanding of chess.

Was that supposed to be a response to my post? If so, you really didn't understand what I was saying.

 

I like to play tournament games. I would like the be able to play at tournament pace more often so that I am more prepared for tournaments. The correspondence time controls allow me to do that. I understand the value of learning to deeply analyze a position. I also understand the value of practicing to play at tournament pace.

 

You suggest we have to enter our own moves first and only ofter, check for blunders. Do you mean we should come up with our own moves, but check for blunders using the computer before we make our move? I don't disagree that this could be beneficial to a player trying to improve, but I don't see how it's better than using a computer after the conclusion of the game to do the same thing. Moreover, once you allow computers into the game, this is not how most people will use them. And for good reason, while it may be a good way to get better, it's not the optimal way for an amateur to use the computer to help their performance in the current game. An amateur will quickly become a slave to the computer and learn nothing. (Keep in mind that you are rated higher than 99% of players on this site.) 

I wouldn't mind a tournament where you can play with computer help but I don't know if chess.com would like that.  It might give some people the idea to cheat if they didn't already know how. But chess.com is here for learning chess and people who just use moves a computer tells them aren't learning so I don't think they would be here for long. You might get a high ranking but your games would be boring.

You want to create a freestyle tournament, where outside help is allowed, in order to eliminate cheating created by bad rules ?  Which bad rules ?  … You have given points in favour of, and against computer analysis, you have stated “I would like to argue that combination of both is the right way to go for the correspondence chess (or server based turn-by-turn chess” – so, perhaps I misread or misunderstood, but which bad rules were/are you referring too ?

The bad rules are rules which you could not control. You can forbid the computer analysis, but you could not prove with 100% certainty that someone is using computer analysis. Rules which are impossible to enforce are bad rules, in my opinion. They will only create compains from the players, but I do not see a way to resolve them.

kirill57, you say that "the USCF and other organizations ( such as IECC, CCLA, APCT) created a lot of confusion by not allowing computer assistance  for the analysis"

Yet  " On the other hand ICCF, which is the main international correspondence chess organization does not have such a rule"

You have given points in favour of, and against computer analysis..

You also said: Rules which can not be reinforced must not be the rules on the first place.

So, which rule "would" you go with ?   

I used to play postal chess in the 80s and 90s by snail mail. I played in the following organizations: USCF, CCLA, APCT and the ICCF ....I eventually quit postal play due to the fact that more and more players were using computers. I just didnt want to waste my time and money to see if they had a stronger program than me.....whats the whole point? If computer use were freely allowed here I simply wouldnt play here. I am not interested in seeing if my engine is better than the next person's. People who argue that it should be allowed because it cant be stopped worry me. Laws against murder dont stop murder either, nor laws against anything in fact. Laws are basically "rules" , so this would make them all bad laws/rules according to the logic of the author of this thread imo.

If someone would commit a murder you have to prove it in curt that he did it. How your are going to prove it for computer assisted analysis? Do you have a way to do it? What is my suggestion, that you should have different type of tournaments,  for people  who want to make they own moves and for people who want to use engines for the analysis. Today all serious players are using it for the opening preparation. Essentially, correspondence chess is exactly same kind of analytical activity, but nobody will forbid to grandmasters computer analysis of the opening, because that would be stupid. Now, if you create different tournaments with different set of rules, for players who want use computer and players who don't you can eliminate most of the cheating, by providing for anyone a possibility to play according to the rules they like.

I can't see how using a computer while playing chess will help your understanding of chess.  I don't see the beauty in that.  It is best to use the computer to analyze your game after your game is finished.  I am an amateur that makes many mistakes without the help of a computer.  That's what draws me towards chess because I get the sensation of using my creative thoughts of trying to discover what is the best and logical moves in a chess game.  Using a computer while playing my games robs of that experience.  You have to excuse my ignorance, because I don’t know much about the rules of corresponding chess or the rules that applies to corresponding chess.  However, if you are applying to use a computer while playing games here on chess.com, then that would open up a big can of worms.  Many people here have strong feelings about other players cheating by using computers.  So, I would have to disagree with you about using a computers in a decision making of what move to play in your games.   

Hello fellas :) And a big bow to the ladies ;)

 

So in short the new rule is there are no rules? Kind of defeats the whole point. I've got Fritz. Yes I could cheat my butt off. Yes I could pretend it's for analysis purposes. But thinking to the depth that that program is capable of is way beyond me. Sometimes I'll use it to see whether the move I already made was a good one, or if not, why not.

 

This website is a place we can play 'games' and those are supposed to be fun. Rules are all well and good in serious tournament situations, but does it really make so much of a difference when the object is enjoyment? I reckon not.

Well, the main problem is that most players do not understand how to use computers beneficially for their chess. In fact, the pioneers of chess analysis with the help of the computer were Botvinik, Tal and especially Kasparov. For a strong players computer is the way to check they own ideas. But this is exactly what any player, even a beginner can do. You make your own move and then you check it with a computer. If it was wrong, then you should try to understand the refutation and now with this new knowledge you can begin to search for a new, better move. In the after the game analysis you do not have this luxury to penetrate deeper in the position after each move. And this is a beauty  of the correspondence chess, that  you can catch your mistakes, before making it on the board and eventually to improve your positional understanding.

There ARE sites that allow engine use and those who wish to 'cheat' should play there.

 

This site follows a no engine rule and it should be stuck to and enforced as best as can be done.

 

I do agree that engine assisted chess IS interesting though... just not when it's illegal! 

Kirrill57 .... i may be vertically challenged, but i am still here... please, will you answer my last post to you.

 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/tournaments/a-freestyle-tournament

I started a so called freestyle tournament. It means that players are welcome to use all available resources for the game analysis, including computer programmes, tablebases and help of other players.
In my opinion this format is better then traditional "correspondence" format,
 
I think, such rules are outdated, because a rule which could not be reinforced 100% does not make any sense. On the other hand a freestyle format gives everyone equal chances, simply because rules are rules of chess and nothing else. where players are allowed to consult all published resources, but are not allowed to use help of computers or other players.

By using chess engines ??  You seriously believe that correspondance chess, played without the aid of outside help/assistance is outdated ?