In reality correspondence chess players use chess engines while playing CC games. This is an irrefutable fact! If a chess player wants to play against a human being, he (or she) plays OTB chess or online chess on the Internet.

All demonstration matches of super grandmasters against chess engines have no connections with our variety of chess. The fact is that Kasparov or Kramnik play against a computer keeping on the rules (a piece is touched � a piece must be played with!) while a correspondence chess player thinking on his/her moves moves the pieces constantly, taking moves back if necessary.

In a chess game where "man + engine" are acting the role of a man must not be an executioner. I am ready to play any such an executioner as long as he stoicly executes all moves his engine suggests. Moreover I am almost sure I will win. I'll agree his computer and chess engine are more powerful than my ones. My statement is based on experience I have received in an international CC event. It was played in 1998-99 by email. I easily defeated chess players who had more powerful tools (computers and chess software) and took clear first place.

In a chess game "man + engine" against "man + engine" HUMAN BEINGS compete each other. An interest one has in such a game is that he must solve the task how to conquer an EQUIPPED opponent. This task may be solved thanks to one's own intuition and with the help of an artificial assistant. A win in a game is usually achieved applying many efforts and doing all the best. However such a win is more valuable than a win on a blunder, on worthless trap or better knowledge of theoretical variations in an opening.

I do not consider myself as an executioner. But I want to play interesting chess and to restrict the number of oversights. I wish to enjoy when analyzing a position with the help of a chess engine and do not like to accept the engine's analysis without contradiction. Analyzing a chess position by a man supported by an engine is a complicated process when BOTH links of a chain are brought into play.

How do I analyze a position? First of all I want to know 4-5 best moves with rough variations.

Step 1. At first step I have a look at a position with my own eyes and try to add to these moves my own ones.

Step 2. I examine moves suggested by an engine playing moves on the board which the engine considers as best ones and watch closely on valuation of those positions. It sometimes happens that my good position turns into bad one after I make several moves following the chess engine�s advice. It means I had to turn off the road somewhere earlier. I do it and go on keeping an eye on valuations of positions. They rise. It is too early yet to be glad and I start to seek where the opponent could have played better. In positions which I asset as a position to be analyzed neatly I offer my own moves to be checked by an engine. If there is a refutation I agree to it. However I am sometimes right and an engine is not.

Step 3. Psychology. Playing versus an inexperienced player it is sometimes possible to divine what chess engine he is using. It can be done when such a player is a executioner. Hence, there is an opportunity to set traps. One should find variations (it is not too difficult to do) which are estimated as safe by an engine but which are inauspicious in fact when being checked by a man supported by an engine.

Step 4. An endgame intuition. I have used it many times. In complicated endgames an engine often evaluates position incorrectly. But when there are not more than 6 pieces on the board all assets are precisely correct thanks to the Nalimov tablebases. The main idea is to analyze an endgame as deep as possible to reach a position with not more than 6 pieces. It is not important at all what intermediate valuation is given by an engine; one has to be focussed on a final valuation taken from the Nalimov tablebases.

What is the main idea of modern correspondence chess?
To answer the question above we should address ourselves to nature of chess. It is well known chess consists of four components:

      � art,
      � science,
      � sports and
      � game.

There are several varieties of chess as well. They are classical chess, amateur chess, rapid and blitz chess, correspondence chess and composition. Each component has a different weight in each variety of chess.

Chess as an art attends in games played by very strong players in classical chess. Composition is a variety of chess an art is present at the most boldly. Sports play the main role in blitz and rapid chess. Amateur chess is just a game.

In a game played with a standard time control I would never let myself cut an opponent�s flag down. In a game played as rapid chess I would think whether to do it or not. In a blitz game I would have no doubts what to do! Playing an online game I would never use a chess engine assisting me. Sports are sports. If the time is a decisive factor of a game it means we must obey it. Playing an easy game one is expected to play fast, playing a game with a standard time control one can think on a move for instance for 30 minutes. Playing tournament games one is prohibited to talk to his opponent; in amateur chess a conversation is a part of a game. In correspondence chess one can seek for the best move as long as he wants getting involved in the process of any kinds of assistance.
Ethical norms for each variety of chess are relative. Solving a problem with a chess engine kills pleasure of a resolvent. However a chess engine is an ideal tool when one wants to check out reasonableness of a problem. In correspondence chess there are sports, game and art but the main role belongs to science. One must go deep into position reaching the truth. It is too difficult to do it without computer assistance in any kind of modern science. If one is not interested in doing such a job he should leave it. One should avoid to play correspondence chess if he doesn't enjoy it.

In fact the appearing of strong chess engines has raised a couple of questions. Indeed it has already caused damage to classical chess. The main problem for classical chess is losing the process of adjourning a game and analyzing it subsequently at home. Any game is played in a few hours nowadays. As a result the level of endgame skills has considerably decreased. It concerns even very strong grandmasters. A ban of using chess engine�s assistant while a game is being played supports the anti-computer control. On the other hand the progress of new technologies makes it more and more complicated. It is a direct threat to chess as a kind of sports.
Correspondence chess has not such a problem at all!