Player disqualified from German Championships

[John Moore]

Thanks for that, Roger. Obviously got my Brooks mixed up! You are right to say some familiar names but some I have never heard of.

[John Moore]

And for those who say why does it matter - Ulf Andersson started to play Correspondence Chess and was amazed to discover that the then World Champion was a Dutchman called Timmermans. Ulf said I have played him OTB - he is only 2350-2400. Ulf's friend says ah - but he uses computer. Ulf says is that allowed then - why would you want to do that!

[John Moore]

Maurice Johnson has long interested me. Assuming all data is related to the same person, he achieved a CC Elo of 2600+ in c. 1998; and was awarded his GM title. In that same year, he achieved his highest OTB grade of 167. I can say no more. He no longer seems active in either OTB or CC as far as I can establish

I've looked closely at much of this, running the ICCF title list for GM & SIM through the ECF grading site. The results are, to say the very least, eyebrow-raising. I've done the same exercise for the Warwicks Ward-Higgs team this year (I'm playing Bd 1 in the Sinclair). I've shared the results with SIM John Carleton, my club captain. He's Bd 6 in the WH; CC (2289); OTB (209). Although a veteran CC player, he has now had certain scales removed from his eyes.

David - I don't suppose you are going to share your research more widely! i.e here

[David Robertson]

lt would likely lead to me being banned. Or to further ill-feeling. Or to litigation if I gave the whole story. It's a very depressing picture.

[Paul McKeown]

I was at university in the same department as one of the top 5 players given in Roger's list. He was a 130 player then, some decades ago, can't think he is a 230+ plus standard OTB player now.

[Richard Bates]

I was at university in the same department as one of the top 5 players given in Roger's list. He was a 130 player then, some decades ago, can't think he is a 230+ plus standard OTB player now.

Well he's not, is he? The list is a Correspondence chess rating list.

Surely the point is that Correspondence chess is obviously dead for those who traditionally played it without computers, and see any use of computers in the modern game as "cheating". However it does not follow that the game is dead for those who play under the only seriously viable option ie. with computers allowed but at a complement to the human player, not as a replacement. The game is dead... long live the game!

[Paul McKeown]

Richard, I don't disagree with you. Except that I don't believe that that a 130 standard OTB player gets to be a 2550+ correspondence player without replacing his judgement in its entirety with that of the computer program. I think a 200 standard player might have something to add to the program's verdict and could sensibly guide it in the right direction to achieve a better playing cyborg than either the human or computer program on their own. Not a 130 though.

[Richard Bates]

Richard, I don't disagree with you.

I should try harder. I can never fully work out how you manage to get involved in so many 'disagreements'! Either something i'm doing right, or something i'm doing wrong...

[Paul McKeown]

Don't try too hard, Richard!

[Richard Bates]

Richard, I don't disagree with you. Except that I don't believe that that a 130 standard OTB player gets to be a 2550+ correspondence player without replacing his judgement in its entirety with that of the computer program. I think a 200 standard player might have something to add to the program's verdict and could sensibly guide it in the right direction to achieve a better playing cyborg than either the human or computer program on their own. Not a 130 though.

That is true, except the rating list is relative. If an individual rises "unjustifiably" high, it is presumably because the case for playing with computers as an aid isn't finally settled/established amongst the Correspondence chess community. After all, it is axiomatic that if computers are allowed as an 'aid' then a player has the freedom to follow their advice dogmatically!

[Alex Holowczak]

I agreed to play for Worcestershire this year because it was on the server, and they were short of a few players. I'm playing on board 43 of 50, against an IM from Yorkshire, rated 2253, who is apparently the Secretary of BFCC. When he played over the board, he had a grade of about 140, which is about the same as mine. We'll see how it goes.

Speaking personally, if you accept that Neil Limbert is right that a computer doesn't know everything, someone of my standard is clearly going to be much improved if I use one, even if only as a blunder check.

[Paul McKeown]

And that I couldn't disagree with either. Basically I don't really see the point in correspondence chess without cybernetic assistance: you end up with communities like poisonous pawn, where basically anyone who exceeds 2000 gets accused of cheating. I should say that I'm currently playing for Middlesex in the Ward-Higgs, my second and third officially rated correspondence games. It would be hard to persuade me to play loads of correspondence chess, though. Don't think I'm strong enough (193 ECF) to contribute much to the computer's analysis.

[Richard Bates]

On the other hand, i'm only expounding theoretically. I've never played the game in my life. Taking the other side i can see the argument that in a fully signed up computer aided world, the game should not really be remotely accessible to anyone below a fairly high basic strength. Probably a lot higher than me!

There we are - two sort of diametrically opposing opinions. No scope for no disagreement there

EDIT: oh look what we've done there - agreed in crossposting.

[Stewart Reuben]

Returning to the German Championship.
I think the arbiter should have been disqualified as well as the offending player:
12.2 The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.
I might allow it once with a warning. Twice? Several times?

For top level tournaments there could currently be metal detectors at every entrance. It happened in the Olympiads in Majorca because of fears about terrorism. It would certainly have been possible at Simpson's for the Grand Prix. Instead there was no measure of paranoia. Grischuk was even allowed unaccompanied to leave the whole building and smoke on the street. There was no drug testing either, although there is at the Olympiad.

It seems likely that this century it will be possible for people to have computers embedded into their brain. Probably it will be unwise to use them to communicate by email.

At least two members of the FIDE Rules Commission have implanted electronic devices. I am one of them. I am pleased to say that it has never yet communicated with me as it would give an electric shock, being a defibrillator.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'm playing the Ward-Higgs this year after a long absence. Nice to know we don't need postage stamps anymore. My opponent has just sent a message asking me whether I will use an engine, just so we can play the game on level terms (gentleman's agreement) - if I will, then he will, and if I won't then he won't. This strikes me as a very good idea.

Those who know me will have no trouble in guessing what my reply will be.

Incidentally I think we have both been playing anti-computer chess so far, just in case. I (unusually) plaed the Sicilian, thinking that my more regular choices would not be wise if I were playing a computer, and my opponent for his part has just played 3.d3!