Player disqualified from German Championships

[Thomas Rendle]

How many times in a game would a strong player really need to use computer assistance to improve dramatically

2 or 3 would have a big effect.

[Roger de Coverly]

How many times in a game would a strong player really need to use computer assistance to improve dramatically

If you are good enough not more than once or twice. So suppose you have the Black pieces and White tempts you by allowing Qxb2. If you cannot extricate your queen, you will lose in an humiliating fashion. If however you can and consolidate your material advantage your winning prospects are rather good.

Get some help in calculating it all out and finding ideas and you make the right choice of moves and get the result.

That was the point of the Feller method at the Olympiad. Only a couple of moves or ideas per game needed to be communicated by "international spectator notation".

[William Metcalfe]

Thanks that is what i thaught 2/3 times at crucial or critical positions would make a huge differance

[Mike W. Richardt]

Having a look at the German Championship website it states 'Eine Normenbestätigung aus diesem Turnier wird Natsidis nicht erteilt'

Meaning: The norm achieved in this tournament will not be counted.

http://www.dem-2011.de/?p=346

[matt_ward]

Thanks that is what i thaught 2/3 times at crucial or critical positions would make a huge differance

I feel the urge to be pedantic.

You mean thought*

And difference*

[Roger de Coverly]

There's more on this at chessvibes http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/playe ... mpionship/ including comments by his last round opponent Sebastian Siebrecht.

The English language chessbase.com website hasn't covered it yet, you would think in the light of the Feller case that it's of interest to the English speaking world. Perhaps it was one of the programs marketed by ChessBase on the offending smartphone.

[Roger de Coverly]

A recent incident has been previously mentioned in a thread about whether you can leave the board during the game.

http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=13525 (in German)
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/first ... ating-case

One of Sebastian Siebrecht's opponents was again suspected of cheating with a smartphone. It appears the Germans have implemented a rule which enables players to be searched for smartphones or similar devices and for such phones to be inspected, or the player to be defaulted if they refuse.

Based on past experience, Sebastian is likely to be suspicious of players leaving the board whilst their move, particularly in the opening phase of the game.

[David Robertson]

All pretty depressing though, isn't it - the insidious advance of computers into the game. They've already reduced CC at every level to a redundant discipline. Only a matter of time before OTB faces its critical moment.

Don't believe me? A sizeable number of readers of this thread - indeed, a sizeable number of contributors to it - learned their chess thirty years ago or more. Computer-aided chess was barely imaginable outside the wilder fringes of sci-fi. If someone told me players, thirty years on, would head to the Gents in order to consult their hand-held, I'd have called up a rather different image from that in use today.

Thirty years on from today? By the time Tom Rendle is my age, I'd bet the 4NCL will have introduced cavity searches before each round. This prospect may appeal to some arbiters more than others.

[Krishna Shiatis]

All pretty depressing though, isn't it - the insidious advance of computers into the game. They've already reduced CC at every level to a redundant discipline. Only a matter of time before OTB faces its critical moment.

Don't believe me? A sizeable number of readers of this thread - indeed, a sizeable number of contributors to it - learned their chess thirty years ago or more. Computer-aided chess was barely imaginable outside the wilder fringes of sci-fi. If someone told me players, thirty years on, would head to the Gents in order to consult their hand-held, I'd have called up a rather different image from that in use today.

Thirty years on from today? By the time Tom Rendle is my age, I'd bet the 4NCL will have introduced cavity searches before each round. This prospect may appeal to some arbiters more than others.

Sad, but possibly true.

[Ray Sayers]

It is utterly pointless to cheat at a game like chess at most levels of the game. Only when there is a LOT of prize money at stake can you see the logic (but not the justification!). If you are caught, it is likely you will get banned from playing a game you love for what? A few quid? A couple of rating points? And you will always be known as a cheat.
I would just make it clear that being caught using a program during a game will get you a 2 year ban from competition. Everyone knows it is cheating so there's no defence.

[John Moore]

Depends on whether you think Falco Bindrich loves chess or has just become good at it - not the same thing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Depends on whether you think Falco Bindrich loves chess or has just become good at it - not the same thing.

He's also named as CEO of "Amateur Chess Organization"

http://www.amateurchess.com/team/

[Tim Spanton]

All pretty depressing though, isn't it - the insidious advance of computers into the game. They've already reduced CC at every level to a redundant discipline. Only a matter of time before OTB faces its critical moment.

Don't believe me? A sizeable number of readers of this thread - indeed, a sizeable number of contributors to it - learned their chess thirty years ago or more. Computer-aided chess was barely imaginable outside the wilder fringes of sci-fi. If someone told me players, thirty years on, would head to the Gents in order to consult their hand-held, I'd have called up a rather different image from that in use today.

Thirty years on from today? By the time Tom Rendle is my age, I'd bet the 4NCL will have introduced cavity searches before each round. This prospect may appeal to some arbiters more than others.

Untrue (but a statement frequently made by people who don't play corr chess)!

[David White]

How many times in a game would a strong player really need to use computer assistance to improve dramatically

If you are good enough not more than once or twice. So suppose you have the Black pieces and White tempts you by allowing Qxb2. If you cannot extricate your queen, you will lose in an humiliating fashion. If however you can and consolidate your material advantage your winning prospects are rather good.

Get some help in calculating it all out and finding ideas and you make the right choice of moves and get the result.

That was the point of the Feller method at the Olympiad. Only a couple of moves or ideas per game needed to be communicated by "international spectator notation".

I played Sebastien Siebrecht in 2008 and he played Qxb2! Unfortunately, he managed to extricate his queen without the aid of a computer and so it was me who had the humiliating loss!

[David Robertson]

All pretty depressing though, isn't it - the insidious advance of computers into the game. They've already reduced CC at every level to a redundant discipline

Untrue (but a statement frequently made by people who don't play corr chess)!

Oh, it must be my birthday & Xmas rolled into one.

Tim Spanton? Sun journalist. Yes? Telling me what's true and untrue. Yes? Well, have I got The Truth for you. Remember: in Liverpool, we have a word for people like you.

Fact 1

Take yourself over to the ICCF server. I know you're registered there - because, alas for you, I am too Now, punch my name in, and read what it says. You'll be astonished, and I hope, humiliated to find, that I have an ICCF rating from ten years back of 2201. That is a long way down, thanks to defeats by engines, from my 1992 rating of 2329. And that in turn, is a long way down from my rating in 1982 when I was 2400+ - pre-engine days, please note!

So much for your ill-informed mouthing off about not playing CC

Fact 2

You may hope that's all I have to say. Alas, there is worse to come. I have just played through your game: Spanton-Pheby from some tournament on the ICCF server. For those who don't know this Pheby bloke, he's just been crowned British Veterans Champion at CC. He has a CC rating of 2418; and a title of SIM (Senior IM), just below GM. Both he & Tim Spanton enjoy long-term OTB grades no higher than 160s. So for Mr Pheby, a near-GM CC title is...well, pretty 'impressive' To add to the general gaiety, Tim Spanton achieved a very creditable draw with the remarkable Mr Pheby.

The game is in the public domain. I could publish it here. But I'm a really kind and courteous person. So I need an invitation from Tim Spanton before I'll publish the game. I need Tim Spanton to be sure he's ready for people to inspect this game. I need him to get his explanations ready. Above all, I need Tim Spanton, who claims I don't tell The Truth, to be ready to answer the following question:

Why is it, when I play through Spanton-Pheby after the first nine moves, every single move thereafter, by both players, is a Houdini 1st choice? (If there is ever a rare departure, it's because Houdini gives 0.00 to all options).

Coincidence? I'm lying? Well, let Tim Spanton invite me to publish the game. Come ahead, Tim. Don't be shy. Untrue, you said, of my claim about CC. So let's hear it from you. I'll publish your game, and let people run it through their own engines. Or you can apologise! Even Kelvin MacKenzie managed that