Here is an online correspondence game I recently finished against GM Aleksandr Rakhmanov. I found a nice line in the database, and went for a drawish continuation. However, my opponent refused to accept that the position was locked, and opened it at his own expense.
Following, there was a bloodbath of tactics that left me up the exchange. From there, we entered a complex endgame filled with key ideas. I finally won with a series of strong moves that simplified the position.
Wow, you are real good, you beat a guy 900 more points than you! And that guy is a grandmaster probably!
Thanks M-W-R, I think the main point here is the amount of effort put into the game. I thought for multiple hours on some moves, while I expect Rakhmanov didn't use nearly so much time.
That's the secret of correspondence chess, you have the time to really sit down and analyse. Fantastic playing!
Oh my gosh, you beat a GM!!! Congrats.
Do you think for hours when you play me???
Your PC beat a GM?
He didn't say that. Learn to read.
Rakhmanov has played over 100 correspondence games on the site and lost about a quarter of them.
EDIT: Plus the ratings giving must be OTB ratings? The GM is only rated 2100 or so in CC here at the moment it seems. A bit misleading.
Fail. How can you 'learn to read' something he didn't write. I inferred it. I don't think a 17XX beats a GM without help.
Someone roll out the facepalm pictures.
I was calling you out on inferring something based on mere scraps.
Have you looked at the game? 32.Qxg4? I think anyone rated 1700 could have capitalised on that without computer assistance for starters.
Also, the rest of my last post. The GM is 2100 in corr. here, he obviously doesn't put as much time into his games as he would OTB, he has lost plenty of other games.
I asked a question. If no, then he didn't use his PC. Fine.
You 'called me out' like a moron with childish 'learn to read' jibes.
It was a bit of a silly question to ask, wasn't it? Engine use isn't allowed here and the game annotations indicate the OP didn't use a computer.
Edit: Can't even be bothered.
In case you didn't know (and this isn't meant stupidly at all!) you're actually allowed to use databases in this type of chess.
Those kinds of annotations are ubiquitous in GM's comments, for example, in world championship games. It's not at all indicative of cheating.
Where did I mention 'cheating' or say what someone is or isn't allowed to do?
So you call me out on saying he used something and then go on to explain that he did. Nice one.
On topic, it was a really nice game. A lot more to it than just him missing the fork. 38...Qe8 - I might have played that, but only by chance, not after analysing for 2 hours! Well played.
Post#6 you state the PC played the game.
Post #8 you say a 17XX couldn't beat a GM without "help".
Please don't try to argue that this wasn't an insinuation of cheating, no-one is going to bite on that.
Post number 6 I didn't state anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark
Drop it now, it's not what the thread's about.
You don't think a database is help?
I simply wanted to know to what extent he had outside aids. If it was only openings then great job, and congrats. I didn't mean the comment to spiral like this and take away from his achievement.
Real mature with the question mark link but alright, I'll drop it. I can't be bothered either really.
Databases are part of the game in CC at this level. Even I've started to use them occasionally.
It was a good achievement!
I simply wanted to know to what extent he had outside aids.
There's an answer for that.
1st post. 2nd sentence.