Engine correspondence should be allowed

Not instead of strictly no-engine online chess. That's really great.

Just I think allowing centaur-style chess would reduce cheating in other areas. The old 'cheating' would become a skill, and the cheaters wouldn't feel so edgy and cool if they used engines when you weren't allowed.

It would be impossible to cheat at this new corrospondence chess, since engines, databases, whatever, are allowed, and the cheaters in the current corrospondence chess might migrate over there.

Plus, it would be great, playing games with computers. I think it'd be pretty interesting. Centaur skills are pretty underestimated. Chess.com should do this before Live Chess960.

Sorry dont agree, play the game without engines and win or lose on your own.

I do not see the where the interest in this lies. Why would you want to play a game where all you do is pit an engine vs an engine?

This does not seem fun, and I think the reason cheating happens is because people want higher ratings...an alternative gamemode would not solve this, as a high rating in that would not nearly have the same prestige than a high rating in which people actually think you are playing.

I'm not saying get rid of any of the old stuff. Just if they were looking for improvement go this way, not Live Chess960. 

And you don't mind allowing accesss to databases, do you? If I really care about a game, I might look throuh a book on that opening. Having a engine-allowed part of chess.com would be like giving everyone a boost to their rating +1000. Course if you're 100 points higher than another person you'll still be 100 points higher if you both have the boost. In centaur chess, opening knowledge would be vitally important- not so much knowing moves, but knowing many, deep ideas and plans. Strategy would also be important, and seeing sharper but also sound lines. If you simply followed the engine main line, you wouldn't win.

This is off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure chess.com already allows centaur-style chess.  You just have to identify the game as being computer aided.  I'd do a search forums or hit the Help & Support articles for confirmation though.

EDIT:  I think it has to be unrated.

Here's one thread; there are many more if you do a search forums for centaur chess.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/centaur

Baddogno is right. The game has to be unrated and you must indicate that the game allows engine, something like "Engine game" instead of "Lets play". Also, I would inform my opponent via chat of my intentions at the beggining of the game in case he didnt realize and wants to abort.

That's an excellent suggestion. However, it already exists, and is called ICCF

You arent learning a thing, and if you need an ego boost, go to a tony robbins seminar.

Thanks. So how do you give a game a title? EDIT: got it.

That's not the reason they just want to screw with people and do whatever they want they don't respect the code or give a damn.

Every CC Player in the world knows how important it is to play with honor and trust for the integrity of the game and the good of compeition.

Would that be engines with tablebases or without? The withouts would have to pray that they won before it got to the endgame... or that it was an 8-man ending!

Preferably without tablebases but chess.com would have to think about whether they could detect the difference between tablebases and engines...

That's right go play at ICCF and keep this a place where one can play normal cc chess. It gives many people a good chance to think long enough about there moves and learn to play chess that way.

I think if chess.com were to offer the option of engine only matches it would be interesting, especially in correspondence games.  Many would like to try their favorite programs against others.  I agree though that no engine should be allowed whatsoever in human vs human games.

I have played 466 cc games here in the 1200-2200 opponents rating range. I have encountered only a few engines. Let's say 2-4 games.You have been  a 2000 player and lost 600 games, you want to say that you have lost to  hundred engines?

But as an added feature it may be nice for some members, you're probably right. Do you already play also with ICCF?

Before i will wonder what is wrong with the myopes, you might first want to enlighten me what the feck myopes are?

I would be fine with this idea...but since centaur chess is already allowed by chess.com in unrated games by agreement, your suggestion that this should somehow preceed Live Chess960 is way off.

Live Chess960 is going to be a lot more valuable to chess.com, and more popular with players.

As for people that don't understand the appeal of playing a game of chess against someone where both players are allowed to use all their resources (short of an engine)...that's a narrow point of view.

Which is more appealing and satisfying long term?  To debate someone onstage and win an impromptu argument, or to write competing white papers with in-depth research and historical references and see your white paper be widely accepted over the other over time?  This is the basic difference between those who prefer live chess over those who prefer longer time controls with databases and books available...

Sometimes I think that those who never played postal chess, where you would be looking at your set up board for weeks at a time between moves, until you understood the position like it was your own child...will never get the idea of correspondence/online chess.  The learning is staggeringly better, and the sense of playing a truly rock solid game that represents the best play you could possibly do without a time induced error marring the game is what draws people.

It's the same reason GMs will gush over a fantastically played draw and completely dismiss the quick win where one GM made a blunder. 

"This would have been a great game...too bad it was ruined..."

For some people, it's all about defeating the other person in person in a face-to-face contest, and the beauty of the game is secondary.  This is little more animalistic, and is like the difference between enjoying Metallica vs. Vivaldi.  

Other sites like Chesscube have live960. That's probably the one and only thing I can complain about this site, besides that its pretty much perfect.

Maybe I'm just dense, but can someone explain the point of engine 'assisted' chess? Seems it is just a matter of who has the strongest engine wins.