Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerPerhaps more importantly, this person's rating is with ICCF, which has no rule against engine use.
[b]SwissGambit :
1. You did indeed demonstrate that a player exists whose present OTB rating is between 1800 and 1900 and is a Correspondence SM. I retract my statement questioning such a person's existence.[/b]
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerIt's certainly possible Fleetwood had a higher OTB rating in the past. However, if memory serves, he is not so old that he should lose hundreds of points due to age.
[b]SwissGambit :
1. You did indeed demonstrate that a player exists whose present OTB rating is between 1800 and 1900 and is a Correspondence SM. I retract my statement questioning such a person's existence.
2. The USCF rating record indicates that this individual hasn't played any OTB since 2000 and that in the early 1990s, was rated betwee ...[text shortened]... er's OTB performance declines due to age, but his correspondence performance remains strong.[/b]
A more likely explanation is that correspondence play is more suitable for someone with a demanding career [http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~dan.fleetwood/] and that his OTB suffered from lack of practice playing with clocks, without reference material, for 12 hours straight per day, etc. etc.
Originally posted by incandenzaThis person's rating is also 2400+ in USCF corr, which DOES forbid engine use. He has also been at that strength for over a decade, well before home computer software could play corr at that strength.
Perhaps more importantly, this person's rating is with ICCF, which has no rule against engine use.
Originally posted by SwissGambitOr it could just be that he's actually using engines:
It's certainly possible Fleetwood had a higher OTB rating in the past. However, if memory serves, he is not so old that he should lose hundreds of points due to age.
A more likely explanation is that correspondence play is more suitable for someone with a demanding career [http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~dan.fleetwood/] and that his OTB suffered from la ...[text shortened]... ctice playing with clocks, without reference material, for 12 hours straight per day, etc. etc.
"ICCF (International): The main international cc organization International Correspondence Chess Federation is silent on this issue, but consultation with rules experts confirms that it is legal to use computers in any form to assist in making moves."
from:
http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm
Originally posted by SwissGambitAh, OK then; I did not know that information.
This person's rating is also 2400+ in USCF corr, which DOES forbid engine use. He has also been at that strength for over a decade, well before home computer software could play corr at that strength.
Originally posted by incandenzaretracted in response to your last post.
Or it could just be that he's actually using engines:
"ICCF (International): The main international cc organization International Correspondence Chess Federation is silent on this issue, but consultation with rules experts confirms that it is legal to use computers in any form to assist in making moves."
from:
http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm
okay, once again, lets get the facts straight:
1) no rating pool has ANY connection to ANY another rating pool. the fact that USCF and FIDE ratings seem closer to each other than to, say, BCF, is merely a coincidence.
2) on top the mathematical impossibility of a relation between pools, the individual strengths of players differ vastly from each other. one is a 100m sprinter, another is a marathon runner. both are in shape, but that's the only thing they have in common. the psychological aspects can differ even more.
3) when a player has different ratings in different rating pools, it doesn't mean one of them is inflated (that is not the meaning of the concept of inflation). it simply means that the RATING SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT AND HAVE NO RELATION WHATSOEVER.
4) *sigh*
Originally posted by wormwoodPeople need to pay attention to 1 & 3 here. Ratings within a pool are simply a statistical comparison to others in that pool.
okay, once again, lets get the facts straight:
1) no rating pool has ANY connection to ANY another rating pool. the fact that USCF and FIDE ratings seem closer to each other than to, say, BCF, is merely a coincidence.
2) on top the mathematical impossibility of a relation between pools, the individual strengths of players differ vastly f ...[text shortened]... ans that the RATING SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT AND HAVE NO RELATION WHATSOEVER.
4) *sigh*
I have to agree with Zebano here. I played in a small chess club in Houston with a youngster whose true strength was 2000, but he had just started playing rated games, so his rating started at p1200. Of course his rating started to climb pretty quickly; everyone else's went down. But then if I went to play at a different club I'd be considered underated. Does that count as sandbagging? Just a thought.
zebano said, "Ratings within a pool are simply a statistical comparison to others in that pool."
Yes, but we have a lot of people who swim in more than one pool. Which means we can do valid statististical analysis on the relationship between pools.
wormwood said, "... the individual strengths of players differ vastly from each other. one is a 100m sprinter, another is a marathon runner..."
Well, if we're going to use the running analogy, then I think I can speak from a position of some authority, since I was Varsity Track in Junior High through College. My analogy would be that OTB is like running an 800m and correspondence is like running a 5K. Someone who trains for the 800m has to develop both their aerobic and anaerobic capacity, whereas the 5K runner focuses strictly on aerobic. If we take that 800m runner and make him run a 5k with a bunch of other 5K runners, he may not shine, but he'll probably do ok, because he can transfer some of his training to that longer distance. However, the reverse is less certain, because the 5K runner may be able to complete the shorter distance without getting overly winded, but still performs poorly relative to the field simply because of the innate lack of speed.
It's certainly true that all of that opening memorization that a competitive OTB player goes through is irrelevant for correspondence play. However, the OTB player's study of middlegame and endgame play is completely relevant. If we were to pick a FIDE 2550 player at random and offer this player sufficient financial incentives, there is not the slightest doubt that this player could eventually achieve correspondence GM. There is a positive correlation between OTB and correspondence.