IM pfren, is it your opinion that the strongest human could beat the strongest computer at long time controls more than 50% of the time?
I assume they play computers regularly for training purposes, but of course the data regarding their performance vs computers isn't available to us ordinary folks.
what are you talking about? http://www.iccf.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=43
strong titled players really dont want to invest the time in CC chess. it takes a massive amount of research and effort to go through stuff. its a lot about openings at that level since one small error and the endgames are just resignable. there is no money in it so its not really worth their time.
i click on the ratings of players and i see the fide ratings like this
Granted i only id 3 but USCF CC rated stuff is well crappy because of the limited pool. top 3 ICCF rated players are....
1 Papenin, Nikolai IM rated 2334
2 Oosterom, Joop J. van rated 2260 (b.1937)
3 Neumann, Joachim 2118 (b.1948 )
I think we are actually saying the same thing: that the strongest players aren't playing for correspondence chess titles.
The Arno Nickel's victory over Hydra isn't an example of a human's winning, but centaur's. Arno Nickel used computer too. It happened before Rybka 3 appeared.
Actually I don't know whether strong unassisted humans are able to reasonably compete against silicon monsters in correspondence chess. I have myself a few completed honest wins over cheaters here, but cheaters aren't usually strong centaurs themselves and their play is often weakened by the effort to avoid getting caught.
In theory, catching an idiot endgame Nalimov-cheater is even easier than middlegame Rybka_1st_choice-cheater. You would be surprised how GM's real endgame play differs from ideal.
A little problem though - Nalimov help can be covered up (by choosing inferior lines) much easier than middlegame engine help.
However it is reasonable to assume that honest middlegame players will stay honest while dedicated cheaters will sooner or later get caught.
I am sure you realize that the paragraph you gave has nothing to do with players using chess machines [...]
So, there is no hypocrisy there. If there really is "hypocrisy" then show it but do not try and equate "some one else" with chess machines.
Computer with chess engine running is a player.
Hence the help from chess engine equals help from another player which is against ICCF's Code of Conduct.
Draw your own conclusion whatever you want. For me, ICCF has no credibility whatsoever with such lazy approach and possesses no authority to run CC championships and award titles anymore.
So, who are the players who will be playing and striving for the world championship?
OK, if you feel so, you can declare yourself the only approved official authority in correspondence chess.
You can also nominate yourself correspondence world champion, to cut down the costs of a world championship circle.
Yes, I can. But I would like to try the right way first, seek for recognition and give the opportunity to other real CC players. 
Just look:
A. ICCF
ICCF doesn't encourage engine use, only tacitly tolerates that with vague statement in Code of Conduct. ICCF members drew conclusion engines aren't external players, but mere tools. This is purely wrong, but ICCF had never taken any action against any external assistance even in pre-computer era.
B. FICGS
Unlike ICCF, FICGS does it right, because engine use is explicitly encouraged there. Nothing against fair centaur CC, but it is not my cup of tea and I don't appreciate centaurs that high as human players.
C. IECG/LSS
AFAIK, IECG formerly prohibited engines, but changed the rules overnight without member's consent. The anti-computer rule just disappeared one day without a notice. If it is true (I admit I am only guessing, but I have read various forums a lot), I have no polite words for it. LSS may run human-only competitions, but only minor ones with anti-cheating measures unknown.
D. Playchess.de (do not confuse with Playchess.com)
This site runs "human" league too, but in turn explicitly states it is only honorary rule without any measures, players are discouraged to employ own measures. Such approach isn't sufficient for serious CC. In fact, this site had been spoiled heavily before chess.com started (and some cheaters moved here).
E. FIDE
FIDE recognizes ICCF, but doesn't pressure ICCF to do things right. CC has been out of interest for long time. Moreover FIDE is corrupted heavily and led by unscrupulous madman who believes in aliens.
F. Stan Vaughan and his rival organisation (forgot the name)
Stan Vaughan was banned for cheating from here. This means the end, such person can't be trustworthy, and his organisation was never widely recognized.
Still surprised I am not content with actual situation in CC?
It doesn't surprise me the USCF's "honor approach" is insufficient to discourage cheating. But in my country is even no such organisation, the "official" one follows ICCF rules.
I propose III-level approach.
I. Ouachita-type cheaters, the blatant ones: these will be banned and blacklisted.
II. Slightly suspect ones and new players, who haven't played enough moves to reach valid conclusion: these will remain members, but they will not be allowed to play in official qualifications.
III. Approved fair players without signs of cheating at all. They will remain monitored, but they will be considered trustworthy to participate in official events.
I have another question. I know someone who runs thematic round robins with several of the top chess engines. By this I mean he will give about a dozen different variations of an opening and then let the chess engines play against each other.
This sometimes results in some improvements to chess theory. Would using a e book with the games played in the round robin be allowed?
A human would turn the results of the round robin into an ebook.
I have another question. I know someone who runs thematic round robins with several of the top chess engines. By this I mean he will give about a dozen different variations of an opening and then let the chess engines play against each other.
This sometimes results in some improvements to chess theory. Would using a e book with the games played in the round robin be allowed?
A human would turn the results of the round robin into an ebook.
Printed books and journals are all allowed. Electronic/internet chess articles written by humans are allowed. Raw electronic game databases are allowed. Electronic game databases containing computer evaluations are not allowed. Thompson/Nalimov endgame databases are not allowed.
It depends. Game database in raw form would be allowed as well as article/ebook with human comments. Engine evaluations and engine generated variant trees based on engine evaluations would not.
Certainly what qualifies as cheating, it is setting two engines to play each other in an opening position player actually has in a game in progress or strongly expects that position will come. For carpers I repeat: game actually in progress, do not confuse with pre-game preparation.
One more question and I am curious-not trying to be picky...
Suspose in one of your games you arrive at this position: 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 and you have 12 very good chess engines play each other in a round robin at ten different possible positions two moves ahead of your current position--would you be allowed to use the results of the round robin?
One more question and I am curious-not trying to be picky...
Suspose in one of your games you arrive at this position: 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 and you have 12 very good chess engines play each other in a round robin at ten different possible positions two moves ahead of your current position--would you be allowed to use the results of the round robin?
1. If we assume engines finished their games before my CC game started, then yes. It is raw game database, though private.
2. If I set-up a position related to my game in progress into engine and switch the engine on, I am cheating. I must not let engines play my position and observe them and even though it wouldn't be exactly my actual position (+2 moves), it is a line easily accessible.
About two years ago I had a similar problem. I played otb in a team league and had a few CC games in progress here at the same time. I needed to catch some bugs at my opening repertoire with white, because my King's Gambit and Closed Sicilian rarely rewarded me with good positions, but I couldn't employ the computer having CC games with these openings in progress.
I have a question too. You seem to spend a lot of time online. Why don't you play? Chess.com is ideal site for ancient old-school pre-computer CC players, isn't it?
4) Lack of recognition by FIDE doesn't matter, because FIDE became untrustworthy itself under Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
It wan't even a grain more trustworthy under Florencio Campomanes.
Florencio never sought the necessary intergalactic support for chess. Don't be so harsh on him; it's not his fault if he didn't know any Klingon.
To answer your question:
I play 15 minutes per player on another format. I do not play here for several reasons. One is I have some brain damage which greatly impairs my ability to play anywhere near as well as I played in the past. I have a health problem where I fairly often fall asleep while playing and always am groggy. If you notice I post at all times day and night and that is because I get very little sleep. Do not like rating system where someone who used to have a rating over 2500 starts at 1200--makes no sense at all.
I am somewhat active in improving the Ponziani opening [improving on a book I coauthored Play the Ponziani] and do have responses to all the various refutations of that opening which have recently been written in such books as The Kaufman Repertoire for Black and White [good book] and The Open Games for Black Lysyj and Ovetchkin [another good book].
Have added instructional games [mostly the 15 minute games] in the theory parts of such groups at The Benko Gambit , Ponziani Power, Scandinavian Group and Sicilian Bb5 group. Hoping that I still can impart some of my knowledge about these openings to the 4 groups...
Also in the group Ponziani Power we hold one of the best discussions before each Vote Chess move you will ever find anywhere and I am very much part of that...
I read this thread from beginning to end, and very surprized nobody ever mention money (sponsors) in big organizations' decision. Everyone knows AI sector is the most profitable sector after oil and oil based industries such as plastics. So prizes were always the main topic in chess (at least from Fischer-Spassky era). I'm not supporting neither ICCF nor any organization's final decision about allowing chess engine in cc play. A wise man said ''If you want to find the truth, you should follow the money''. So, the money is in AI business. And supercomputers must be sold to almost every field,,, chess has no exception for them.
Chess by computer is such a bore. I don't know a thing about CC style chess but if I get what I have been hearing the player with advantage is the one with the latest and greatest chess engine. If I have this right then how can anyone find any remote interest in such an unimaginative activity? It is like watching a live game over the internet and having some weak player who happens to be running an engine critiquing the play of GMs. I personally believe that computer chess engines have done more to hurt chess then actually help it……of course I could be wrong…..just my two cents.
Noreaster, it is all about the purpose. A weapon may harm or protect the innocent simultaneously. Using computers to store your cc games in your private database and adding, deleting, sorting, commenting, annotating to it, has no harmful effect to any of your opponents. But engine usage with cloud computing supported is one the fastest way to kill pure human correspondence chess play.
Please tell me what is "cloud computing" is it something angels use when they have a math problem?
Impossible to spot.
If there's a single good move, how do you know the player doesn't just know the technique/how to play the endgame? You don't.
End game I will just read about the specific situation and go over it by playing it a few times to see if it works and read about the technque.