Wolff Morrow's Opening Analysis

I'm curious though, do you actually have any experience of playing ICCF correspondence chess in the engine era?

I've found a draw between Bologan and Ivanchuk from 2012 (albeit blindfold) featuring 11...Rc8 instead.  And now in that forced line I cited beginning 11...d5 White is emerging +0.30 at depth 27 with 14. Bg2.  Which is where if I cared to continue the process, I would back up and more deeply investigate 11...Rc8

No, not in the engine era.  I entered a US Correspondence Championship qualifier in the engine era, then chose not compete when I saw USCF/OTB  C-players sporting 2300+ ICCF ratings -- that's just downright farcical.

I admit: I'm a patzer with an engine.

Touche!

+1

offtopic but Wolff Morrow is a badass name.

In the ancient Olympics in Greece they would have running competition for various distances.

Then in more modern times someone had a bike.  One could ride a bike faster and longer distances than a runner could run.

The Olympic Committee recognized this and there were events where using a bike was allowed.  In other words they saw that it was cheating to use a bike.  Some have better bikes than others so it is an unfair advantage.

I want to compete in some so called "bike events" but I have a ten year old bike that is even a little rusty.  Why don't I get another bike so I can compete?  Because these bike events are cheating anyway so do I have to cheat to compete?

Bike events as used by dishonest runners are distracting from the honest runners who won titles and tournaments before the use of bikes was allowed.

I am skilled in running and challenged one of the best bikers to a 5 kilometer run but the so called champion biker did not respond.

You know these people who use bikes--it is like a drug to these people. They are so used to cheating by using a bike that they do not know how to run anymore.

You know when the Olympics changed the rules so as to "purpetuate that these new people are not cheats is just not good enough, and does nothing to change my stance of the matter."

It's still crappy analysis because of the lack of detail.  He should have at least addressed ...h6 in his notes, instead of just sprinkling ! around.  Yeah I did that too, but I'm trolling on chess.com, not writing a feature for the USCF's website.  IM Pfren's comments were much more helpful, and we would never have gotten them without me trolling.

BTW I'd never be caught dead playing this sort of thing as Black.

blumzovitch my wayward friend, listen to what David_Star is telling you.

Your presentation was mean-spirited and that was not necessary and in the end you really did not prove your point.  

You got some interesting comments from pfren however.

Do not assume an old published rating or even a new published rating is indictitive of the current strength of a player.  Especailly when the two ratings are from a different type of chess.

Look at my blitz rating [this is an example] do you think that rating is equal to my correspondence rating?  Also, do you think that the blitz rating reflects my blitz play?   [the answer is "no" to both questions.]

Finally, do you think being a "troll" is something good?

Wolff Morrow

ponz I have to say your bike analogy was brilliant!

thank you thank you!

I've got to get back on my psych meds.  I'm not joking   Got an appointment in 2.5 weeks, just trying to hold on until then.

This has been already discussed to death. I am also tired of adressing it again and again, especially when I see the same man having failed to learn anything.

Simple. There are 2 forms of correspondence chess today, they must not be confused and must be kept strictly apart. The casual one with external assistance (including computers) allowed and the serious competitive one, strictly one to one.

No, sisu wasn't completely right, there is centaur chess where engine use isn't cheating, eg. FICGS or LSS. The actual question is whether engine use in the ICCF qualifies as cheating or not, because ICCF's rules are somewhat unclear. So ICCF possesses no authority anymore and creates confusion as their rules fail to adress this serious issue. I haven't found anything there about allowed external assistance, only vague statement that players should decide moves themselves and avoid external influence. Despite this, ICCF never ever policed it, even in the pre-computer era, and most ICCF players use external assistance today, almost exclusively in the form of computers. I wholeheartedly disagree with internet ignoramuses who insinuate that ICCF's spoiled habits could serve as universal norm for online and correspondence chess.

Running hills is far easier than biking them.  Still, this reminds me, I need to ride my bike today, and I'll even go up a hill.  The downhill speed makes it worth it. 

I just saw this thread for the first time today.

Not trying to re-hash a debate about engines in CC. I would like to ask, How do you play 'computer assisted' CC? It seems to me the only thing an engine can do is take a position and, depending on how much time and power you give it, determine a move.

Does this make it just a matter of who has the strongest engine? I can't believe this can be true.

Sorry. It's just that I have never played CC, but I do use an engine for analysis, and this is just how it appears to me that it would work.

If someone could say a bit about how this works, it would be great.