The draw is an amazing achievement. Very well done to all involved! 
ps
Internet certainly isn't the real world.
Ask any OTB GM 
The only concession to us was switching off Shredder's opening book, so it is amusing that it got the better of us and the database (according to itself), in this phase of the game. If I recall, the novelty in the game may have been my suggestion of b5, although I was not planning the pawn sacrifice we followed up with when I suggested it.
One conclusion is that the strict "discuss for a couple of days, then vote with a consensus" plan was very much better than most vote chess games.
The consensus votes certainly help. That, given a strong team, should avoid any mistakes and deeper positional inaccuracies. I think the lack of this discipline early one is what hurt in the Pogonina game in general.
Having looked through the discussion, not a single contributer was consistent in choosing the moves that Shredder preferred, and the fluctuating views expressed about our chances are also inconsistent with Shredder's (sometimes inaccurate in the opposite direction). I think all of us were at some point convinced of other moves than our own first preference by the other players, and in almost every case this was an improvement.
It is amusing that the latest categorical (and abusive) accusation in the public forum discussion comes from a player whose bullet rating exceeds his turn-based rating by 300, which has probably led him to believe that his turn-based opponents are all cheats.
I have to admit, Ivan, that my rallying call before the game that we could get a draw was consciously over-optimistic. I was pleasantly surprised it was correct!
Nothing to forgive, savyma.
If our opponent can get the evaluation as wrong as it did in this game, we merely need quite a lot more of the same.
I just worked out that, according to the Elo statistical model, Gary Kasparov at his rating peak would be expected to get almost 18% against the engine we played against, at standard tournament speeds. Clearly correspondence speeds are a different matter, and gave us a much better chance of avoiding fatal errors.
One thing the engine didn't do is pick a very sharp line, the Stonewall Dutch isn't that full of tactical surprises.
I've always had difficulty accepting the Dutch as a fully adequate defense - it is a bit like a non-material gambit, where black plays a non-developing, slightly weakening move for central influence and a little kingside space, and justifies it eventually. And Short's opinion is way more reliable than mine.
I've always had difficulty accepting the Dutch as a fully adequate defense - it is a bit like a non-material gambit, where black plays a non-developing, slightly weakening move for central influence and a little kingside space, and justifies it eventually. And Short's opinion is way more reliable than mine.
But Botvinnik and Petrosian played it and they were no positional fools.
Steve, I've got news for you. This is the real world!
I don't see the relevance of "prestige" to the discussion, only quality of contributions.
The opponent was Deep Shredder 12 64 bit on a 2 processor Linux box. 24 hours or more most moves, typically 26-28 ply.
The only concession to us was switching off Shredder's opening book, so it is amusing that it got the better of us and the database (according to itself), in this phase of the game. If I recall, the novelty in the game may have been my suggestion of b5, although I was not planning the pawn sacrifice we followed up with when I suggested it.
One conclusion is that the strict "discuss for a couple of days, then vote with a consensus" plan was very much better than most vote chess games.