I used to play postal chess by snail mail ... now I think that way of playing is all but extinct but I dont know . I have a bunch of post-a-logs now that I have no use for ...
Kinda hard to throw those dinosaurs in the garbage. I still have one with cardboard pieces that slide into slits in the book. I bought it from USCF in 1978 or 1979.
I used to play postal chess by snail mail ... now I think that way of playing is all but extinct but I dont know . I have a bunch of post-a-logs now that I have no use for ...
Kinda hard to throw those dinosaurs in the garbage. I still have one with cardboard pieces that slide into slits in the book. I bought it from USCF in 1978 or 1979.
I don't throw mine away but I don't know why ? I had one of those that were cardboard pieces , can't find it now though . Too many moves over the years I guess and stuff gets lost . The few I have remaining are all those sticky pieces , I believe I still have 3 post-a-logs .
I agree that it wouldn't be fair to change someone's title that way.
If I had been born 50 years earlier, I would have been a huge fan of correspondence chess. Although this age has its benefits too. I can play and talk online whenever I want.
Yakov Borisovich Estrin was born in Moscow. After a brief foray into over-the-board play, he turned to correspondence chess in the early 1960's with immediate success (joint first place in the U.S.S.R. Correspondence Championship in 1962). He became a GMC (Correspondence Grandmaster) in 1966, and would go on to compete in the final of the World Correspondence Championship five times. He emerged as champion of the 1972-76 edition of this event. In 1975 he was awarded the OTB title of International Master.
Apparently they used to distinguish between correspondence and otb titles so what would be wrong with continuing to do so ?
I started playing CC in the late 1980's over BitNet. Although it was brief-lived, I ran the rating system for CC players who hooked up using the Chess-L list. Back then, desktop chess programs, although increasing in strength rapidly, were hardware-limited and could not yet compete with OTB or CC masters.
Still in the late 80's, I recall watching one of the top-10 CC players in the world running an engine simultaneously on dozens of IBM-XT's at a university computing site I managed. I was hovering between A and expert at the time (OTB), did not know the ICCF rules on engine use, and didn't care. I had played him OTB to a drawn endgame (which I blew, despite the efforts of our local club's cheering section :)), knew he was good, but the engine sighting surprised me. He was a low-ranked IM at the time, about 2250 FIDE, and highly-ranked in the ICCF.
Fast-forward 23-ish years to my joining chess.com, and encountering what seemed to be pure (not centaur) engine use for the first time. Moves that a human simply would not make -- unthematic, no plan. I was working very hard (2+ hours per move, sometimes 10+ in a complicated position) to get draws at best. It was like hitting a wall, and it began in the 2300's here (chess.com rating; my "real world" CC rating was similar to my OTB rating, 2000-ish). My sense of it here, in the 2010's, was that the human had given over completely to the engine. Anyway, I closed my account and quit the site. Came back, obviously. Will likely close and quit again I expect, but I don't play nearly as much now and may not come close to the engine-use rating threshold again.
Regarding the rating difference between CC and OTB ... Canadian Jon Berry was a half-generation ahead of me, was an OTB-FM and CC-GM, and proceeded to the GM title during a time when engine use was nearly impossible. I don't recall what his exact ratings were, but a 300 point difference seems about right. I think the real measure of an inappropriate difference between CC and OTB is that the player cannot explain the main features of a position. Many players cannot produce strong play at OTB time controls; this in itself does not incriminate. It's when they demonstrate they do not understand the game that there's something wrong.
I agree that it wouldn't be fair to change someone's title that way.
If I had been born 50 years earlier, I would have been a huge fan of correspondence chess. Although this age has its benefits too. I can play and talk online whenever I want.
Yakov Borisovich Estrin was born in Moscow. After a brief foray into over-the-board play, he turned to correspondence chess in the early 1960's with immediate success (joint first place in the U.S.S.R. Correspondence Championship in 1962). He became a GMC (Correspondence Grandmaster) in 1966, and would go on to compete in the final of the World Correspondence Championship five times. He emerged as champion of the 1972-76 edition of this event. In 1975 he was awarded the OTB title of International Master.
Apparently they used to distinguish between correspondence and otb titles so what would be wrong with continuing to do so ?
Nothing. If they started handing out GMC (or CGM) titles I'd have no problem with it.
But if you change someone's title to centaur grandmaster, it wouldn't make much sense if they had gained the title in the 60s.
steve bute any over-the-board or correspondence master can explain the main features of a given position. Even experts can do this.
I've been an expert, and I can't always see everything that matters in a position. If I could, I'd be world champion.
In the above list I checked for OTB ratings of the 10 players listed and found 2 B class players and 1 unrated in OTB play ! Only 2 of the top 10 even have an OTB title and that is NM . The top 50 can be found here :
http://www.iccfus.com/ranks.htm
The computer engines have taken over modern day correspondence chess and is why I quit this form of chess in the 90s . I am not interested in seeing who has the strongest engine or who best knows how to use them .
Dan Fleetwood is a well-known scientist.
I have checked the first names and the were already Correspondence Chess prominent masters in the early 90's, well before Rybka
Computers are ruining OTB somewhat too. Even low rated players memorize over 20 moves of computer generated theory from the latest Informators.
Well I think it can be hard to notice who are the ones who aren't that good but do lots of opening study. Ironically it's because they often won't stay in theory that long (you might play a line they simply don't know about). Yes if you just so happen to play into their line, well, ok, but chances are you won't, because there are way too many branching off paths in chess in general. Trying to cover every line, even "every reasonable line," is probably just impossible.
But yeah this is all kind of the point. Most of the time you won't get any good advantage anyway, and even if you do, it means very little if you can't follow it up with good moves.
Even as an expert, my only priority really is to avoid getting into positions in which I don't know what to do, or, ones in which I am in big trouble. I do want to know what are the major pitfalls or basic misunderstandings that can lead to a totally wrong/risky strategy on my part. In doing that I may play out a few example variations, but that'll be it. Then I just learn from those, and judge how I will improvise. Indeed, I expect to improvise, and me playing out a few variations is just showing me what that "might" be like.
It's completely different, but I do wish the old type of correspondence came back.
Also, seeing a lot more of people playing moves/variations that used to be considered 'bad' by theory but have leaerned through engines they are playable.
For example:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Nc3 Bf5 !?
Long held to be dubious but now with engine assistance and practice Black gets a very pragmatic position otb.
Seen it numerous time in the past two years otb. Theoretically still ok for White but Black gets seriously good play and creates a mine field that most White players will have hard time coming out of unscathed.
I think you may be confused. The only line where black plays Bf5 as a gambit is this:
1.d4 d5
2.c4 c6
3.Nc3 Nf6
4.e4 Bf5!?
Says the guy who simultaneously triple posted and necroed 
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 !
How perfectly disengenous of Reb to omit the fact that Mr. Duliba has been inactive from OTB play for essentially 20 years.
I'm sure that was a mistake, right?
Says the guy who simultaneously triple posted and necroed
I hadn't read the beginning of the post, then just earlier I was going through topics I've posted in, found this and read it from the beginning. As for triple posting, they were replies to three different responses. And I think your definition of necro'ing is overly broad in that this thread was active just 10 days ago -- 10 months ago, sure, 10 weeks ago yeah, 10 days -- not so much
Well, ok 
The point I am making is that one can get high ratings and titles ( in otb chess ) even if they are not strong chess players .
Really? I think you are confusing OTB with the Internet.