Diamond membership titled player

In the past couple of decades correspondence has had such pervasive cheating that they allow it now, and Chessbase advertises on their Endgame Turbo page that it's indispensable for correspondence play, and I somehow don't think they're talking about post-mortem analysis.  I was never into correspondence but unfortunately it isn't respected anymore.  Even if you never use a computer and have a master's skill level people will just assume you're using one anyway. 

Scorpion, speak for yourself as to who is respected and who is not.

If a chess federation allows help from chess engines and a player uses that resource--it is not cheating.

[in my day, fortunately it did not matter as the best chess engines were below the level of the players in the Finals]

To give an anology, I think it is ok to use chess data bases [which I never used until recently] and that is an enormous help to existing players but is it cheating?  Or to use all the books and internet access in the openings which can in some cases play part of your game for you--is that cheating?

The word "cheating" is sometimes too loosely thrown around...

By definition its not cheating when its allowed but I dont believe thats his point. His point is that since ICCF  allows computer use and many people do use them ( especially those at the top )  that respect for top correspondence players is practically gone , because they arent playing the games, the computer(s)  are .  I dont know what other correspondence organizations allow computer use but doubt ICCF is the only one.  The fact that some don't allow computer use certainly doesnt mean they arent being used by some players and in such cases that is cheating . The fact that recent ICCF world champions had OTB ratings under 2400 and even under 2300 is also an indicator that the computers have taken over at the top of correspondence play . 

There is no doubt that computers have taken over a good part of top correspondence play but there is also a lot of skill there.

I would not read so much into their USCF rating as what happens is when they start getting good at correspondence they are not interested or playing USCF. 

The players who do not use and are not allowed to use computers in correspondence chess do have other helps which added up are nearly as much help as the chess engines.

If someone wants to say current correspondence chess is not so much at the top that is fine-that is an opinion. But to say they are "cheaters" because they use chess engines when allowed is simply not a true statement.

I think that the specific skills of the top correspondence players these days would make for an excellent second (or third) member of a prep team for a top GM. There is no doubt that these players are very skilled - the question is at what. Recognizing positions where computer recommendations are not as useful, and in particular having a database of such positions and paths to getting there.

Ozzie what you say is true but there is a little more to it than what you mentioned as sometimes chess engines are dead wrong and also sometimes what data bases say about openings are dead wrong and one has to be able to find the truth in such situations and also to recognize the times when the chess engines or data bases have it wrong. 

@ponz111 That is exactly my point; you put it more eloquently.

Ponzi, who said they are cheaters for using computers when it is allowed ? I certainly didnt say that .  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Correspondence_Chess_Championship

If you check the most recent 2 world champs there you will find that they are both under 2200 otb FIDE !  If you check earlier champions ( before computers became stronger than professional players ) you will see the world champions were also strong OTB players and usually GMs or at least IMs .  It is clear whats happening in the correspondence world ( ICCF for sure ) the machines are taking over more and more and the person behind the machine doesnt even have to be a strong player ....  thats why respect for strong correspondence players is on the decline ...

@Reb I think you mean respect for strong correspondence players as OTB players is on the decline.

Yes...... even a world champion in correspondence play might not be NM strength in OTB play .  This wasnt true before the computers became so strong but it is today . 

Reb, when someone uses logic as you did in your last post--I cannot argue with it and apparently you are correct. 

It was not you who called such players  "cheaters". 

I think the closest you can get is that presumably a lot of those players were in fact cheaters (all of them?) when it was against the rules, but then they changed the rules. Meh.

please advise where I can find title player application form?

http://www.chess.com/members/submit_title_proof

thanks... where can I find this?

One fairly easy way is to get a USCF rating of 2200 and then you are an FM and you get some kind of certificate and then you can get the chess.com goodies.

I meant how can I find the given link?)))

2200 USCF rating ( OTB )  earns the NM title  ( or used to )  and not the FM title which is a FIDE title and has nothing to do with USCF . 

@jempty_method 

I gave up correspondence chess in the 90s when computer use became so obvious and prevalent . I have no interest in seeing who has the better engine or who knows how to use them better . 

Jempty, your best bet to get a special membership is to become a USCF master. It does not matter how high a correspondence player can reach as far as obtaining a  chess.com special membership.

And I agree the USCCC is far different from when I played in it.