Top ICCF-US Players

Then again they hang up all sorts of bullshit in art galleries sometimes. They were actually displaying giant canvases that had nothing but red paint covering the whole square. And they had a whole room of them on the 2nd floor, some blue, some green. I couldn't believe what I saw -- I'm not kidding here. I wish I could have taken a picture of one of them.

I don't think that is a good analogy.

For one thing ICCF did not rate my preliminary rounds.  I scored very well in several preliminary rounds--high enough to put me at about 2560 active rather than my current slightly lower and inactive rating of over 2500. 

ICCF now rates the preliminary rounds.  One needs 30 rated games to have a completely permanent rating.  I have 27 games rated out of the 30.  They are not counting a whole bunch of games I played, or for sure, I would have a title. I could even play 3 more games and lose all three and get a title.

I already posted some of the achievements  of 9 of the players in the Finals which I won with 13 1/2 out of 14.  Not going to post it again. You just ignore my posting.

I am not a class B player who achieved more than a 2500 ICCF correspondence rating.  My last year of over the board chess I had a performance rating of 2438 which included 3 tournaments. I have at least a 75% record against USCF over the board masters.

Actually when I started USCF over the board I was a class A player. I was never as low as Class B, even from the start.

I won the 2nd USCF tournament I ever played in and have won several such tournaments.

Before I played in the ICCF finals, I was the highest rated player in APCT which was the strongest USA postal, correspondence organization. Below APCT was CCLA and then USCF with NOST lowest. 

If you cannot figure out that my correspondence record translates to over 2500 then you are very poor in math. 

Something just came to my mind...If ICCF allows assistance of chess engines than why this site doesn't in so-called online games?

ICCF allows chess engines because they know chess engines will be used anyway.

I am guessing this site thinks it has a very good way  to detect players who use engines?   

So you are basically saying this rating of 2500 isnt on a list anywhere ?  I have never said you are a B class player , how many times do I have to draw pictures for you ? !  The fact that there ARE some B class players with ratings over 2500 and the GM title in correspondence though cheapens both the title and the rating , do you not understand this ? If a B class player can do it then it should be easy for a 2188 player , such as yourself , to do it .  You played OTB chess from 59-73 , why did you never win the state championship of your state ?  

Also, an another question just came to my mind. If all ICCF players use engines ( propably the best, I see no reason why would anyone use some obsolete ) then why are some players much better than others? They should all have similar ratings because engines are now stronger than even best world human players...

I just told you why I did not win the ICCF GM title. It was because, to my misfortune ICCF at the time did not rate a host of games played in various preliminary rounds to the USA Championship. I scored very well in those games.  If they had been rated then, for sure, I would have a title.

Now, ICCF, has recognized their mistake and rates all the games in the prelims.  I have 27 games rated and need 3 more to have a permanent record and a title.  I could lose 3 games and then have a permanent record.

I did look up my inactive rating a few years ago. I think it was 2538 but I have memory problems and "2538" may be off by a few points.  Due to my senility, I do not even remember how I looked up my rating.

 You ask with my fair rating why I never did win the Illinois State Championship?  I lived too far away from where this tournament was held and never [that I can remember] played in it. Illinos is a strong state for chess and grandmasters play in the state tournament, so there is no guarantee I would have won it anyway with my last 2438 USCF abilities.

There is also another reason which I have not mentioned. A severe disability which caused me to lose my employment of over 20 years and retire at a early age.  It was a very rare disability.  I would go without sleep for 48 hours on average.  then would try to sleep.

When I had those good results in the US Open in Chicago, I lived in Kankakee Illinois and was working full time. So I had to work a full day and spend more than 1 1'2 hours just to get to the Palmer House where the tournament was played. Then 1 1/2 hour drive home and then to work and then after work the drive to the US Open.

When I used to work for the State of Illinois I would work often Monday and Tuesday without sleep and then try to get the day off on Wednesday and then work Thursday and Friday without sleep and sleep on the weekend.

You might imagine how difficult it was to play in that US Open while working full time?  I won my first 3 games and then was paired with Andrew Karklins who has won the Illinois State Championship. Out of 777 players our game was one of the last to finish.  It was a draw but the game ended after 2 30 in the morning.  Then back to Kankakee and work a full shift and then back to the Palmer house without sleep and then I was paired with a grandmaster...

By the 8th round I was paired against Steven Tennant who was a former Illinois State Champion. He was a semi friend of mine as I had played him in city to city competition [and had a plus score against him]

I played the Smith Morra Gambit.  I got a very good game against him.

 In the Rook and Pawn endgame I was up two pawns. But my head was spinning due to exhaustion and lack of sleep.  The game ended in a draw.

[this game is published somewhere]

My friend was elated. He kept saying "You were up two Pawns and couldn't win!" You were up two Pawns and couldn't win!"  He was correct. After that game I had to drop out of the tournament.

One reason I turned to correspondence chess was because of my severe disability...  

Yes, that's a very good question I think most people don't have.

The answer is engines don't beat humans because they find the best moves, engines beat humans because they make fewer and less serious mistakes.

Engines still make mistakes. Sometimes pretty big positional mistakes... I say big because a human would always know better, but not big in the sense that it's damaging enough for an unaided human to win. But these humans can help the engine play better in those cases, and that's how there are different ratings.

Also opening choice. Engines don't know anything about the opening.

They're also really bad in some endings, and just somewhat bad in others. But endgame tablebases help that in some simpler positions where it can calculate to a stored position. In complex endings humans can still help.

I played USCF correspondence from the late 70s until about five years ago when someone with the handwriting of a retarded person and a lifetime 1300 rating OTB blasted me off the board like when I play an IM friend of mine. I'm done.

USCF was strong in over-the-board but not in correspondence. For years they had a rule of no chess engines allowed.  However when it became apparent that in their top  tournament some were using chess engines [against the rules at the time] they changed to allowing chess engines.

Your lack of understanding of your own argument is a bit concerning. We can compare cycling to running. That's the point. Does a runner say, "Look at that champion cyclist, he is not impressive to anyone, after all, he is only a class B player!" No, that is folly.

The very basic point which you seem to reject is that OTB chess and correspondence chess are different things, as different as cycling and running. They have some of the same rules, and they both have the word "chess" in the name, but otherwise they are different things. Runners and cyclists both breathe air, but that's unimportant to the argument, so don't get hung up on that like an unschooled 4-year-old would. Do the runners taunt the cyclists because they are not "real athletes"? Not unless they are incredibly insecure.

What motivates you posting this argument here other than insecurity? What about brain surgery? I assume that, like me, you are completely incompetent when it comes to brain surgery. Do you go to the brain surgeon message boards and tell them how they are not that impressive because most of them are only class B chess players?

It`s mentioned here:

http://www.iccfus.com/archive/index1.htm

LOL I really don't understand LOL. Do ICCF have their own titles? which are different than OTB titles?

Yes

People like what they like.  One cannot deny however that correspondence games are highly instructive due to their unbelievable quality.  Very powerful novelties are oftentimes found in correspondence. 

 Here's Dvoretsky's opinion on the current state of correspondence however:

"Contrary to the author's (i.e., Sanakoev) convictions, I am sceptical about the prospects of correspondence play.  The emergence of computers analysing at grandmaster level inevitably creates the temptation to use their service to achieve good results.  Nowadays practically all players employ powerful computers for opening analysis (the detrimental effect of this process on chess is obvious- chess fans are interested in a competition between individuals, not machines).  But in correspondence play a computer can be used throughout the game"

Dvoretsky, School of Future Champions 5, page 98.

I believe the use of chess engines for opening analysis is good.  With the help of a chess engine, I have found some nice novelties and good lines in an opening in which I co authored a book.

The very top over-the-board players use chess engines for their openings preparation and sometimes other situations.

One problem however...

Obrigado Jorge !  

The contrast of the difference in OTB v Corr ratings is highlated by a recent  corr champ and SIM : 

http://www.iccfus.com/crosstables/usccc_finals/uscccf15.htm#

His OTB rating is 1809 and can befound here : http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/

A difference over 700 points is quite staggering !