Rather than responding to my point, you try and denigrate.
I have NEVER "waded through reams of information and categorized it according to a set of standards and rules with a powerful engine doing all quanitative work" with me just picking through the files.
Nobody likes to toot their own horn as much as ponz does ....
This whole forum is based on reb's desire to denigrate top ICCF-US players.
He uses the logical fallacy called "ad hominem"
"ad hominem" is the logical fallacy to try and rebut an argument by denigrating its presenter rather than by dealing with the argument itself.
This whole forum is based on reb's desire to denigrate top ICCF-US players.
He uses the logical fallacy called "ad hominem"
"ad hominem" is the logical fallacy to try and rebut an argument by denigrating its presenter rather than by dealing with the argument itself.
"I don't know why it is that we need to denigrate, to knock down, it's so unhealthy for the culture, it's so sick." Barbara Streisand
I'm not going to take sides here in this dispute but I am going to clarify things a bit as reb, ponz111, and I have been around long enough to have possibly noticed each other's accomplishments in ICCF and correspondence chess in the USA. I've stated mine, they are moderately successful. I think my peak ICCF rating was high 2300's circa 1992. I have a pretty good memory as well as a lot of correspondence chess publications dating way back.
When I got heavily involved with ICCF master class and domestic play back in 1986, top level correspondence chess had a lot of prestige. America had recently crowned it's second world correspondence champion, Viktor Palciauskus, an OTB master player. Through the efforts of new ICCF-US secretary Max Zavanelli, the strength of US players involved in ICCF increased dramatically.
ponz111 won a USA correspondence championship by a pretty decent margin, defeating many of the premier players in the USA convincingly. I recall he used an early ...Bf5 line in the Scandanavian with great results. Pretty certain ponz111 was at or near the top of Maz Zavanelli's list of the top 50 ICCF-US players. I think I cracked the list a time or two, near #50.
I don't recall seeing reb's name among the top players of that age, not to say that it wasn't possible he was out there making a mark as well.
Maybe chess engines have ruined postal chess now. Maybe the top players of yesteryear have to use them to keep up with the new breed of players. However, ponz111, others, and I have a lot of quality games against the elite players of the pre-engine era that prove correspondence chess can be played at a high level if you will devote the time and eneergy to it. I got burned out with it in 2000 before I realized a few people had likely been cheating me. There was one older fellow at CCLA with a 1500 OTB rating who crushed me twice about 1995. He was beating everyone in sight, even an FM. He refuted one gambit of mine with a move countless players never saw. In 2001 I picked up a chessmaster program and tested my Fred gambit against it. CM promptly played the same refutation. I would have to test the two games out, but yeah, I would say he cheated.
Let's respect everyone involved, ok?
[COMMENT DELETED]
^^^
Edit: I did not delete this comment, so clearly a Mod did (is there a reason this was not properly identified?)...so I would like to ask why all the other porn and Christianity comments are allowed to remain? There was nothing beyond simple discussion in my comment. Is it because I posted a causal relationship between one and the other?
Let's respect everyone involved, ok?
Quite correct and a balanced post, in stark contrast to the other NM gracing this Thread with his personal vendettas.
FYI I started this thread so that ponz and I could finish our discussion without disrupting other threads . I thought it best we keep our argument(s) out of other threads and restrict them to this one . I wish others who argue back and forth would do the same thing and not disrupt the threads of others .
if you know engines are allowed and the ratings in that list are meaningless, then why are you so bothered by it?
i seriously doubt anybody gives a crap about the top rated players in that list
if you know engines are allowed and the ratings in that list are meaningless, then why are you so bothered by it?
i seriously doubt anybody gives a crap about the top rated players in that list
Yes, engines are allowed now. However I know and played some of the players on that list. MOST earned their titles and high rankings BEFORE engines were allowed.
Why, as a couple have suggested, try to take away their titles which they earned from years and decades of play before the time of the chess engines?
It is just mean spiritness [and probably jealously] to say we should take their titles away.
Correspondence players recognize them for decades of very wonderful games.
if you know engines are allowed and the ratings in that list are meaningless, then why are you so bothered by it?
i seriously doubt anybody gives a crap about the top rated players in that list
Yes, engines are allowed now. However I know and played some of the players on that list. MOST earned their titles and high rankings BEFORE engines were allowed.
Why, as a couple have suggested, try to take away their titles which they earned from years and decades of play before the time of the chess engines?
It is just mean spiritness [and probably jealously] to say we should take their titles away.
Correspondence players recognize them for decades of very wonderful games.
Who has said anything about taking away anything from these players ? I havent seen anyone suggest that their titles should be taken away . What is wrong with your reading comprehension ?
Yes , changing the name to Centaur chess would please me . I also think they shouldnt use titles like GM and IM because these titles are already used for OTB chess , so they could change theirs to something else so people arent confused . CGM and CIM or someting similar , the C = centaur and/or correspondence .
They are correspondence chess champions not Centaur chess champions.
They mostly earned their titles before chess engines were in use.
Changing their titles to something else which is not even representative is the same as taking their titles away.
I know there are a few people who would be pleased for them to lose the titles they earned with decades of play at the highest levels.
Yes , changing the name to Centaur chess would please me . I also think they shouldnt use titles like GM and IM because these titles are already used for OTB chess , so they could change theirs to something else so people arent confused . CGM and CIM or someting similar , the C = centaur and/or correspondence .
They are correspondence chess champions not Centaur chess champions.
They mostly earned their titles before chess engines were in use.
Changing their titles to something else which is not even representative is the same as taking their titles away.
I know there are a few people who would be pleased for them to lose the titles they earned with decades of play at the highest levels.
You are being dishonest . Changing the title to CIM and CGM is not taking anything away , its just changing the title so it will be distinguishable from GM and IM ( which are OTB titles ) . Please note that the C could stand for correspondence and/or centaur . Would you prefer ICCFGM and ICCFIM ? I think its misleading when both OTB and Correspondence use the same titles .
Your postings speak for themselves.
Changing the letters used for a title is NOT taking a title away ponz . It simply avoids ambiguity between the two very different forms of chess : OTB and Correspondence/Centaur . Since it is ICCF awarding these titles and since ICCF allows engine use , and has for a long time , then the C would represent Centaur GM or Centaur IM .... whats wrong with that ?
Being an IM myself, I would never be caught dead playing in ICCF. I don't like engine use and what it has done to chess.
Changing the letters used for a title is NOT taking a title away ponz . It simply avoids ambiguity between the two very different forms of chess : OTB and Correspondence/Centaur . Since it is ICCF awarding these titles and since ICCF allows engine use , and has for a long time , then the C would represent Centaur GM or Centaur IM .... whats wrong with that ?
ICCF is not going to take away titles to please you and a few others. Changing titles and putting "Centaur" as part of their title is equivalent to taking their titles away.
Changing titles mostly earned from non chess engine play to a title indicating ONLY chess engine play is not representative of games of the players on your list. You are delibertly misrepresenting the decades of play of these people from mostly non chess engine play to JUST engine aided play.
If someone has 20 or 30 years of non chess engine play to achieve a high ranking their rankings and/or titles should not be taken away because now some of them have to use chess engines to keep up with the other players who use chess engines.
These players have actually done two great things. They showed their chess prowess with non chess engine aided play and when things changed they also showed their prowess with chess engine play.
As, I said many of these top players earned their title by years and decades of very tough chess. Much of it was before Centaur Chess and you want to denigrate these players by misrepresenting the type of chess they played most of their lifes.
One of your main ideas for this whole forum was so you could denigrate those top ten players on the list you gave at the start.
I am 73 and senile for a few years and have a memory problem.
But I think I remember starting a forum which was going along ok and then for some reason, unknown to me, a group of posters started attacking and denigrating one particular person.
I asked that they stop but they continued. Then I contacted chess.com and asked them to explunge either the whole forum or at least the part where the denigrations happened.
I do not remember if chess.com expunged the whole forum or just part of the forum. I believe they [chess.com] took some type of action.
I think it would be best for the author of this forum to have the whole thing explunged.
Rather than responding to my point, you try and denigrate.
I have NEVER "waded through reams of information and categorized it according to a set of standards and rules with a powerful engine doing all quanitative work" with me just picking through the files.