Ponz, I did ok in correspondence , even qualifying for a preliminary group ( masters group ) in the ICCF , which I started , but did not finish . Don't let my current low correspondence rating fool you ... I got that by simply quitting all my games ( dont recall how many I had going at the time ) when I realized that engines were being used more and more and I didnt bother to respond anymore .... I was forfeited in dozens of games and my rating took a huge hit but I didnt care because I was finished with correspondence . A correspondence "GM" needs to be qualified as such by an additional letter such as maybe "CGM" to distinguish between otb and correspondence play . I dont know why anyone would have a problem with such a designation ? You can also be a "GM" in problems composing/solving I believe ? Such titles should all reflect in which area of chess that title was earned . You don't agree ? I also play various otb time controls : blitz , bullet , rapid/action chess so I dont know why you keep referring to time controls I dont play or am not good at ? Can't you be more specific ? It seems to me that if you were as good as you claim Ponz you would have been state champion at least once during your otb years .... why werent you ? I did it twice ( Ga ) and a third time in 2008 that didnt count because I was living abroad at the time ... and won the city championship of Lisbon once while living there , the same year my wife was Lisbon female champ . See .... I can toot my horn too when provoked.... 
Have you ever met a GM? Story?
Reb, the is a big difference between state champion of Illinois and state champion of GA.
One state champion of Illinois was Andrew Karklins. He was 2415 when I played him and the game was drawn.
Another Illinois state champion was Steve Tennant. The last game I played him was also a draw but in head to head city tournaments I had a plus score.
A Chicago champion is often much better than many state champions.
I played Angelo Sandrin twice and have a score of a win and a draw.
Also, I had a friend who won the Chicago Championship [Chicago Open] with a score of 5 wins out of 5 total games. I had a friendly match with him and scored 1 win and 1 loss and 4 draws. [William Harris RIP]
But I lived too far from the Chicago area to have a chance to play in such tounaments. I also have a severe handicapp which made it impossible to play USCF over-the-board since 1973.
The correspondence games are almost always of a higher quality of play than over-the-board. So, after having to give up over-the-board, I used my energy for correspondence and reached the highest levels in the USA.
You can disparage correspondence chess all you want but I played before chess engines were used.
NO! Correspondence grandmasters do not need an additional letter! This is your attempt to disparage such players. These players earned their titles before chess engines!
What is important in chess is beautiful or exciting or just plain nice games.
It does not matter what is the time limit for such a game, the game speaks for itself.
This forum is not to disparage people. This forum is to give our experiences when we met/played against grandmasters.
Correspondence titles should come with an asterisk.
Correspondence titles should come with an asterisk.
Do really think it is necessary to disparage other people? Have you ever played well enough to earn any title?
Correspondence titles should come with an asterisk.
Correspondence titles should come with the mail. 
1973 was the very last year I played over the board USCF Chess. I did play in the US Open in Chicago that year.
Yes, I have heard of the Chicago Industrial Chess League.
I lived too far from Chicago to play in many tournaments. Besides in 1973 I had a disability which made me give up over-the-board USCF chess.
Reb, the is a big difference between state champion of Illinois and state champion of GA.
One state champion of Illinois was Andrew Karklins. He was 2415 when I played him and the game was drawn.
Another Illinois state champion was Steve Tennant. The last game I played him was also a draw but in head to head city tournaments I had a plus score.
A Chicago champion is often much better than many state champions.
I played Angelo Sandrin twice and have a score of a win and a draw.
Also, I had a friend who won the Chicago Championship [Chicago Open] with a score of 5 wins out of 5 total games. I had a friendly match with him and scored 1 win and 1 loss and 4 draws. [William Harris RIP]
But I lived too far from the Chicago area to have a chance to play in such tounaments. I also have a severe handicapp which made it impossible to play USCF over-the-board since 1973.
The correspondence games are almost always of a higher quality of play than over-the-board. So, after having to give up over-the-board, I used my energy for correspondence and reached the highest levels in the USA.
You can disparage correspondence chess all you want but I played before chess engines were used.
NO! Correspondence grandmasters do not need an additional letter! This is your attempt to disparage such players. These players earned their titles before chess engines!
Ponz , in 1976 there was a 4 way tie for the Illinois state championship , one of the tied players by the name of Tums has a floor of 1900 , which means his best rating was under 2200 . 2 of the others tied were also not masters and only Karklins was ... seems to me before 76 it would have been even weaker so why couldnt you have a shot ? Yes , there is a difference in strength of players and numbers of strong players from state to state just as there is a difference between the strength of an OTB GM and a " GM " who gets the title through correspondence play ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY HAVE STARTED USING ENGINES BACK IN THE 90S ! Before the engines took over the correspondence world champions were ALL also strong otb players , at least IM and today some of the best correspondence " GM s" are only class players in OTB . Its certainly not fair to refer to one who relies heavily on an engine to be equated as an equal to one who does NOT . Why cant you see the problem here ?
Reb when I played in the Finals of the 7th United States Championship, the players in the Finals were USCF masters, at least the ones I was able to look up. The tournament was played without chess engines. To reach the Finals each player had to win a 15 player preliminary section of all masters and experts. [this is hard to do] So my opponents were very strong players.
I have played dozens of USCF masters in postal or correspondence or over the board and have a big plus score.
The USA Correspondence tournament started about 1986 and my games in the Finals were decided before 1989. My score of 13 wins, 1 draw, and no losses in the Finals was fairly good. I am tired of your disparagements.
Most of the people who are now correspondence grandmasters earned their titles before chess engines. You are going to disparage their titles?
Are you really so full of yourself that you want to take away the successes of other players?
Currently and for some time the ICCF Correspondence Chess has been with the use of chess engines. But remember the top players are playing other opponents who ALSO USE chess engines. There is much skill to this. I learned this when I did the two challenges on chess.com where I played Black vs two strong groups of players. If you think it is so easy, why don't YOU try it sometime?? I can tell you, you would not do so well.
Just stop putting me down and stop putting other players down.
Instead, how about seeing some of those games YOU played vs the many grandmasters you played? Or how about showing us some of the best games YOU have played?
I agree with many of these points. Centaur chess is a very different game to correspondence chess, not requiring some chess skills at all (but requiring specialised skills relating to massively assisted analysis). But traditional correspondence chess is a very high quality game which has no lesser objective status than OTB chess.
The fact that you can use an analysis board in the rather nice form of online chess here (or traditional correspondence chess) is a bit like the fact that you can use a pen when doing mathematics. The lack of an analysis board (and time) is rather a limitation or handicap in OTB chess (like the lack of sight of the board is a handicap in blindfold chess).
That is not to say that calculating variations in your head or even playing games blindfold are not impressive skills as well, just that they constrain what someone can achieve (except perhaps for very exceptional players).
The difference between an analysis board and an engine is huge. An analysis board is a way of recording thoughts: an engine largely replaces the thinking itself.
i totally agree that correspondence play is a difficult and great skill set but it's a completely different skill set. you do not need to be a great chess player to be a great chess analyst. understanding how to use statistics and good hardware can go a long way in corr. and saying this as a player who has played high level corr and freestyle tournaments and some great players OTB and online, have played the best in these disciplines at some pt fairly recently and was outclassed as you might expect, but more so by the top human players than the best centaurs. in order to compete with the best u need to be prepared with some extraordinary resources or else you will be on the defensive all game. corr has changed a lot however in the last 10 years, many more theoretical dead ends; i expect some shifts away from the very forcing lines.
Correspondence titles should come with an asterisk.
Different skillset. And no, it's not because they have a supercomputer why they got the title. It's because they KNOW how to BEAT people with supercomputers, and you can't do with with just spending money on hardware.
And Lance Armstrong had to figure out how to beat other cyclists who were doping. What a hero he was.
These battles between Reb and Ponz are always epic, like watching my grandfathers fight to death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5CGFVTIZwI
believe me i do not wish to discourse with this idiot. he just will not leave me alone. He thinks by putting others down it will make him look better.
I wish he will leave me alone and for sure, there will be peace.
I am not surprised that you resort to childish name calling . Stop your arrogant boasting and you wont have a problem with me . I am sure your blog is full of such boasting so just refer people to your blog ... is that so hard to do ?
Oh, and if you are really curious to see some of my games you can find some on chessgames.com and 365chess.com and in my library on ICC .
I met GM Micheal Adams in Los Angeles tournament, very nice person and of course he Adams won the tournamment with ease. :)
I find it funny how Mr ponz11 sure does love calling Mr. Rev an idiot. Surely if Mr. ponz was SOO much more superior than Mr.Rev, he would AT LEAST capitalize the beginning of his sentence! Another thing, isn't is just darn tootin hilarious that yall spend enough time looking up words beyond your vocabulary? It sure as heck tickles me. Maybe you all should answer this poor person'a question instead of arguing about your past, or who thinks what, or what went on here and there. Stop with these gormless arguments and just, and with a smile on my face, play chess.
There's nothing that special about "meeting a GM". It's not like they're the President or something. You can't throw a rock in NYC without hitting a GM.
I have met a few GMs in which I felt I was meeting someone special ... but certainly not all of them . Meeting Spassky was the most special for me . Do people really chunk rocks in NYC ? Where do they find the rocks ?
They take chunks of buildings as they fall apart!