Tim Harris just posted the following. I think his question deserves a post item. Here it is:
I would like to obtain opinions, that is, civilized responses, to the following question:
1.) What is your opinion of Correspondence Chess (or “CC”)?
2.) If it is postive, then why? If not, then why?
I appreciate all civilized opinions whether negative or positive. Your response will be most appreciated. As both a correspondence player and OTB player, I have noticed that hardly anyone ever mentions correspondece (or these days, Email or webserver) chess. Also, before anyone posts a comment that correspondence chess players can “cheat” using computers…well, just review the hype surrounding GM Topalov and GM Kranmnik!
I just want to get various opinions as to why those who post messages on this blog never mention corrrespondence chess. You do know of its existence…correct?
Love it or hate it, correspondence chess can (I reiterate “Can”) make one a better OTB player. It is here to stay in one form or another…considering technological advancement….and to GM Susan Polgar, thank you so much for allowing me to bring the topic of corresponce chess up in this blog. It means a lot to so many people around the world…I mean, literally, thousands.
I’m working on some quality correspondence chess material to submit to you for review in the hope that it might be mentioned on your website/blog. I will get back to you regarding this.
Correspondence chess has both a world champion and a new U.S. champion but have not been recognized by those who comment on this blog. My question to those who read this blog is:
Why? My curiosity is merely academic in nature and I just want to get others’ opinions. If anyone cares to respond, please do not insult as so many “Anons” do. All opinions are welcome. I believe firmly in freedom of thought and expression.
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris
Tim,
This is my take. We now live in a society where people want results and solutions NOW. That is why McDonald’s, Burger King and Subway are popular. When I give a puzzle each night, some would plug them into Fritz instead of calculating everything out themselves.
Many people tend to be impatient. They want to play dozens of blitz or bullet games instead of thinking the moves out, especially younger people. This is why Internet chess is even more popular than OTB chess today.
Another reason is Marketing. Since not enough people are pushing Correspondence Chess, many people do not know about it.
I agree that Correspondence Chess can help your game because it forces you to think, analyze and do research.
As I mentioned before, I would be more than happy to publish article about Correspondence Chess if you or others send them to me.
At one time, I had stopped playing chess altogether because of academic commitments, and when I could not restrain myself, became a member of a site where you could play CC.
There was some rule like you could take upto a month’s leave in a year. Since I was travelling to a conference abroad for three weeks, I requested my opponent for a break without using up my leave. He claimed a win the moment 21 days were up, without even checking if I was back yet.
Anyway, I decided to get back to playing OTB and online after that.
I did play a couple of online correspondence games with two people, but both of them got called off – one because I told my opponent I found the opening unfamiliar and was consulting books, and the second when my opponent stopped responding for no clear reason.
I do play a lot of blitz online, and it has a bad effect on my usage of time in longer games. I tend to lose or draw from better positions just because I don’t use my time well and move at the first impulse.
I don’t play OTB much anymore, and never at USCF events because of the cost. I enjoy correspondence chess because I can fit it into my schedule more easily, and it just has a more leisurely feel to it, even if you’re playing a dozen games simultaneously. 🙂
The required record keeping is a pain, however, and I look forward to the day when USCF CC finally goes completely over to a web server format.
Of course, it would be nice if they finally brought the CC ratings up to date, too….
Oh, and regarding cheating: there’s little one can do to prove it, though I’m sure it goes on. You just have to trust to the honor of your opponents.
I have considered playing CC, but I worry I might lose my enthusiam for it half way through the game. It is the commitment part of it that worries me.
In OTB, when I am down a pawn and have a long struggle ahead to maybe achieve a draw, at least I know the duration of “grim defense” will be limited to an hour or two. In CC the grimness could last months – yikes.
Still, there is a great convenience to CC. No travel, flexible scheduling.
I did recently try Correspondence Twixt, and I enjoyed it a lot (see http://www.LittleGolem.net). I was sparked by an advert for Twixt in Chess Life 2006.
There are some chess web sites that track CC games, send auto-emails after each move, show the current position etc. Completely easy.
G
I used to play correspondence chess at a halfway decent level (about 2100) but I gave it up when it changed from a task of finding chess moves to one of sorting out the best computer response. Today it’s all computer against computer and the human role is simply to guide the computers. That’s a reasonable approach that some people like, but it just doesn’t interest me.
I use to play correspondence chess through USCF and was even in the Finals of the Maryland State Correspondence championship one year. I think that most people in general have been brainwashed with “in correspondence chess it is too easy to consult a computer”, and whether you use the computer’s move or line or whatever you can still check the accuracy of your “own” ideas using the computer’s assistance. This is a fact, like it or not, computer’s have almost spoiled the game of correspondence chess. For one, why send postcards anymore with moves when you have the power of email and for second thoughts, why play a game against someone by email when you can rest assured you can play the same game against your program, a high percentage of the time. Okay, there is a lot of committed correspondence players who will NOT cheat because they enjoy this game too much to be caught into that predicament. But then again there is many inflatable ego’s out there who will not resist to seek out the computer’s advice. I myself enjoy the tactical nature of a OTB chess game, the psychological pressure that you can put your opponent in by making certain moves or ideas on the board. This is naturally non existent in the game of correspondence. You do not have to have strong nerves, and the games always seem to lack tactical complexity for the most part (not always!) simply because the players are checking their analysis with a computer. And we all know beating a computer tactically, or strategically based on tactics or practically nonexistent with the strength of these engines today. I conclude by saying this is a crying shame! The game of correspondence use to be a love of mine many years ago before the “rise of the machine”. But whether we like it or not the “machine” has brought us not only many many ways of enhancing this wonderful game to say the least, but with it “one” huge way of ruining it (in my opinion). Computer chess programs will be so strong in the near future that no human will stand a chance. if they have come thus far in 10 years (built to where they can “at least” draw now with world champions). Where will they be in 20 years? Just think about that. Where will chess be in 20 years? Will it decrease or increase in popularity with the existence of new technology? Should we, devoted chess players, even care about the games’ rise in popularity, or is our hidden agendas and egotistical philosophies respite? All of these questions will remain unanswered for the next 20 years. But I have personally met this woman Susan Polgar, and besides the fact that she can do nothing but “change the direction of USCF for the better”, she is definitely the person to have behind the fortress because her love for the game will withstand all of these selfish motivations being consistently displayed by almost everyone else. I do make a lot of analogies, accusations, etc etc, but you know It is only because I have strong feelings about the game that I love so much. Us americans should be very very fortunate to have someone like Susan even in our country, working to promote chess. There should never be any negative criticism against her if your really love “chess” because everything she does is based upon promoting the game. It is the selfish desires, and political aspirations that beseech our love for the game that drives people to criticize Susan. Even for the people who are currently in the positions they are in they for the “love of the game of chess” should look deep inside themselves and recognize that Susan is just a much more experienced, and enthusiastic, not to mention professional in the field of chess. There enthusiasm may match her’s (which i seem to doubt that even from what ive seen) but clearly her experience, contacts, credibility, and professionalism are heads above the rest. I have spoke to so many of my friends about Susan. We need to give her this opportunity to help the USCF, not only for our sake, but for the younger generation who do not even know about this game yet. Chess can help education, chess can help selfesteem, i could go on and on, but you know chess can also help us as people and if it can help us as people it can help us in our everyday lives, and in turn that will affect everyone else in every way!
Jimmie Beatty
Maryland
If half the people were using comps, then there would be a sudden race to the top of the ratings list, and a big ratings split would show up quickly. That isn’t the case. Therefore, it seems unlikely.
I play a lot of internet correspondence chess, generally three days per move. It’s great! Maybe some use a computer to try to save losing games, but I’ve never really felt that was happening. Also, for example an 1800 player like myself is at the 95th precentile in the ratings. Computers are 1000 points stronger. So from this we can deduce at a glance that at least 99 percent of the players are nothing near computer strenth.
And this is computer based correspondence. I really doubt that more people would want to cheat in regular correspondence. Furthermore, the type of instant gratification zombies that would computer cheat, aren’t going to wait months for it to pay off.
Some of the posters here even seem to be admitting having computer cheated, and it bored them so intensely that they gave up correspondence.
As for the anony-mouse upset about being flagged, sorry buddy, you have to watch you clock in all forms, except sometimes not in the coffeehouse form.
I don’t like Blitz chess and usually don’t have the time / patience to play a full-length game on-line or in person. So I primarily play CC.
I’ve been playing at GameKnot.com for almost 4 years now and have NOT found much evidence of cheating. Out of the 300+ games I’ve played, only once have I felt that another player was using an engine (the player had a much lower rating and seemed to make not just good moves, but perfect moves). AFTER the game is over, I often run it through Fritz to see what I missed. Usually Fritz finds a blunder or two (or more) on both sides (my rating ~1600 in CC) which leads me to believe that most of my opponents are not using an engine. Finally, there’s a huge range of player ratings on GameKnot.com – if the majority of them are cheating, they’re not very good at it!
My son and I play correspondence chess on queenalice.com, and I would highly recommend it. You can have dozens of games going at once and can move on games whenever you have a few minutes to spare. It is actually very convenient.
i never use computers to solve problems. whats the point your not going to learn anything. id rather stare at a problem for an hour and get nowhere then use a computer to solve it. with any problem the the first couple moves are critical then theres always the single move that breaks the problem apart and everything falls into place.
wolverine
sometimes a good way to solve a problem is to work backwards. you look at what you want to accomplish at the finish and see how to get that accomplished. to me the problems are alright but you have to play either against strong chess engines, online or in tournemants to really put your problems solving ability to work.using a combination of playing with both white and black, problem solving and going over grandmasters games would make anyone improve. i personally hate 5 minute blitz chess because it never really allows a player to think through things as they would in a regular two hour game. i play most of my games against chess engines set at the highest elo then take back my moves that get punished and ive noticed i take back very few moves and able to win alot of games. the thing is whenever your good at anything you always get a ccused of cheating. i used to punish players online in checkers when they were using engines and i wasnt . they would say i was cheating and using engines because thats what they were doing. the cheating accusations never end when you become good at a game.
wolverine
I play CC exclusively, and have been primarily a CC player for decades, since back when we mailed postcards back and forth, before personal computers became common.
For me the issue of computer cheating doesn’t even factor in, since nearly all of my CC games now are Fischer Random. SchemingMind and E4EC are the two CC clubs I belong to and where virtually all my games are played.
I like to play CC. I sometimes use a computer to help analysing my position. It’s not a great engine but it tells me if I’m going to make a blunder if I’m not sure about a move and also I can easier find some lines that look intresting for me to play.
I play CC because I rarely have time or an opponent to play OTB, and the options for online play are really limited to blitz games. That’s fine as far as it goes, but I’d rather take my time. I play better that way, too, just because of the lack of pressure – even without cheating. Which I suppose happens, but there’s really little point. Maybe folks who are trying for a ratings title or something have some incentive to cheat, but I just play for the fun and challenge. So I’m not interested in becoming part of the communications channel in a test to see if my instance of Crafty can beat my opponent’s instance of Sjeng, or whatever. We don’t even allow research (honor system, of course).
I played postal chess for a long time. Paul Keres attributed his playing strength to playing hundreds of games at once and I thought this was a good reccomendation. My over the board strenght did rise but it took a lot of time to research and play the moves, so I quite. Other priorities took over. Now I am afraid many people use computers in postal chess. There is no way to check, so I ma no longer interested in it.
Speaking of Correspondence Chess,
I was aghast to reach in Alex Dunne’s Portrait of Correspondence Player Edward Duliba in the February 2007 that Dr. Duliba advocates not resigning and dragging on a lost game because (as reported by Mr. Dunne) an international game takes up a sigificant percentage of a player’s lifetime. (Bullet Point Number 5, page 26, Chess Life).
In other words, according to my interpretation, Dr. Duliba is advocating dragging the game on in order to perhaps win via medical reasons.
I hope I’m wrong! If I’m right, it’s one of the most heinous things I ever saw written in Chess Life.
I have already written to Mr. Dunne for clarification on this.
Given the fact that I have no one with whom to play OTB chess locally, although I am teaching my ten-year-old niece chess — at a slow pace (because she was initially intimidated) and focusing on nonconfrontational exercises and lessons (we have yet to play an actual game) — I have recently started to consider correspondence chess, but I must admit that I do worry about cheating (although some people are commenting that it is not really a problem), and I would like to find a venue that emphasizes camaraderie and potential friendship (as well as the simple fact that I play chess for fun, realizing that I learn the most from the games I lose) over winning.
For about a year when I was in high school, a friend and I tried playing chess by postal mail. I always had a chessboard set up that depicted our game, but it collected dust most of the time.
One problem was that my friend is dyslexic (although he loves to read and is an imposing chess opponent); writing letters was a real effort for him.
The other problem was that neither of us knew algebraic notation (yet), so we drew the chessboard with our respective moves in each letter, which was time consuming.
We did, however, play hundreds of OTB chess games for over a decade, when we visited each other during every break in high school and college. (It took me ten years to beat my friend at a game of chess!)
A couple of years ago, I played chess via e-mail with a friend’s son in Odessa, Ukraine. We used algebraic notation, but he would occasionally not record one of his moves and then try to make that move again, and he was very busy in school, as well as weekly piano and chess lessons. We never finished a game, unfortunately.
I joined the US Chess Federation in December, because I love chess and am trying to improve my game, and because I wanted to play in USCF tournaments — until I saw the exorbitant cost (on my current budget).
For those of us who cannot afford to play in many OTB tournaments, correspondence chess is, in theory, a viable option, although it is not for the impatient and, from what I read, some venues involve complicated procedures.
I will review the venues mentioned in these comments, but I am currently playing against my two electronic chess games (one is a table game and the other is the hand-held Mephisto game), as well as researching which chess software to install in my upcoming change to Debian GNU/Linux from another Linux distribution.
Were it not for the administrative trouble for Susan’s organization, I would love to see a Polgar correspondence chess venue. Perhaps I am an idealist, but I would like to believe that most admirers of Susan and her important work would not cheat at correspondence chess.
The topic of correspondence chess is surely one that deserves a well-researched article by someone with experience playing chess in this manner.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Cordially,
David
Ginsburg,
Thank you for mentioning that. When I read it I couldn’t believe what he said – especially since someone DID die during the course of that tournament (mentioned earlier in the article).
Dear Susan,
Thank you very much for publishing my post on your blog. I have read each response and have found them quite interesting.
To all who posted, I thank you.
Most CC is played via Email or by web server (such as with the ICCF). In my experience, and I have played correspondence chess for years, that it has drastically improved my OTB play.
If one looks at the ratings of CC players (whether they’re playing in the USCF, ICCF, or another CC organization) most fall between the Class D through class A level. It is logical to assume that if most CC players were cheating with Fritz, Rybka, Shredder, or another chess engine, then their rating would be well above the 2200 level.
Of course, there are those who cheat in CC. However, when I first began playing I actually thought
most people would cheat with computers but I gave it a try, anyway.
To my wonderful surprise, the vast majority of USCF correspondence players are honest and do not cheat by utilizing Rybka, Fritz, or Shredder.
Correspondence chess isn’t for everyone. It does take a lot of patience. However, for others CC fits their lifestyle and work schedule quite well.
Here is a quote from the ICCF website answering the question of “Why play Correspondence Chess.” I think it’s quite true (the link is
http://www.iccfus.com/download/iccf_brochure_usa_02.pdf)
for those who want to read the 2-page brochure.
Here’s the quote:
“…Correspondence Chess is a valuable tool to perfect the art of
analysis. It helps the learning and
acquisition of new openings, the mastering of the middle game, and the knowledge of the end game. It
enables a player to immerse him/herself into the secrets and
beauty of the game of chess.It has been said in OTB chess you have to try to find always a good move, but in correspondence chess you always have to try to find the BEST move.”
In my humble opinion, this is true..at least for me.
After playing CC for some years, I feel much more confident playing in a live OTB tournament.
…and to GM Polgar, I will
keep you informed of quality material regarding correspondence
chess. My sincere thanks to you
for assisting me in bring attention to this topic.
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris
I play CC with CCLA. I do not view the USCF as providing anything other than very limited support for CC. Therefore the CCLA offers a much better alternative. I play CC to improve my game. My rating results are secondary. Some of the comments with regard to computer cheating in CC are quite humorous. In any endeavor in life I suppose one could decide not to participate because someone may cheat. If I go out for a walk someone could drive up on the sidewalk and kill me. I don’t let that prevent me from going out for a walk. Comments from people indicating that all CC games are influenced by computers are uninformed. I am a low (1400) rated CC player and my CC rating reflects my playing strength. I have never played a CC game where I was playing someone at my rating level that I felt was using computer aid – if that was the case it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to win. I win some and I lose some. If you are interested in playing CC – play it. If some one would happen to cheat – who cares – I am certain that no one is dying to look up your CC rating anyway. In fact – other than one’s self no one really cares about another person’s OTB rating unless you are rated above 2100. The issue with ratings updates at the USCF for CC is characteristic and symptomatic of other issues with the USCF. The USCF needs to realize that although average players (rated 1000 to 1500) are interested in GM play OTB that their membership is mainly average players and scholastic players and not GMs. I am enthused that Susan is running for the USCF board.
Just a comment to those who say cheating has not been an issue in their correspondence games. I suggest you enter the Golden Knights tournament or some other tournament where there is big prize money involved and you will experience this first hand I am sure 🙂 i was quite surprised to see that nobody mentioned this *special exception* and I didnt in my first comment posted so its understandable but yeah just like prize money tournaments on internet chess servers are full of cheating occurences, and over the board tournament such as the World Open (which i attended and did rather well 7.5/9 u1800 section) all that has to happen is that some serious rewards be offered and im sure you will see the level of play rise to a remarkable height ( i wont even say the inevitable ) ill leave that to your imagination :). To conclude I wish correspondence players continued success and enjoyment of a fantastic chess variant.
Dear JimmD,
You stated: “Just a comment to those who say cheating has not been an issue in their correspondence games. I suggest you enter the Golden Knights tournament or some other tournament where there is big prize money involved and you will experience this first hand I am sure”
The top prize for the 2007 Golden Knights is a mere $1,000. I wouldn’t consider this “big money” considering the length of time it takes to get through the preliminaries, semifinals, and then the finals. Same is true of the Electronic Knights Championship. The top prize is $700.
Many of those players that actually reach the finals are good players. I’m sure some utilize computers. However, with so many Class-level players involved in CC, I just don’t see the empirical evidence that the majority of CC players within the USCF rely soley upon computers. Their rating would show it. This is a fact. I do respect you opinion very much, though. Thanks for the post.
The ICCF didn’t *specifically* make the use of computers legal. They simply do not comment on this point. There are many top-level OTB GM’s (i.e. GM Ulf Andersson) that regularly play brilliant games on via the ICCF. I doubt he relies upon Fritz 10 or Rybka to decide hhis moves.
The USCF specifically forbids the use of computers. Again, I believe that if all or most or many, were cheating with computers, then their ratings would have to reflect this.
This is simply not the case.
So, to those that are considering Correspondence Chess, I highly recommend giving it a try, at least. If you decide it’s not for you, then that is fine. It isn’t for everyone.
For me, I play both OTB and Correspondence. You can always try it. You can enjoy both forms of chess as so many people do.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I first signed up for a CC match, I automatically assumed (without evidence) that my opponents would use computers and I’d lose every game. To my surprise, nothing (and I mean nothing) could have been further from the truth. 🙂
I’ve met a lot of good, honest people playing CC from every walk of life: Lawyers, doctors, teachers, military personnel (lots of them play CC), and others that I would never have the privilege of meeting at a regular tournament.
To me, it’s not about ratings. It’s about what has helped me the most to immprove my chess. CC has because I really began to study chess books in-depth.
Cheating with computers is now creeping into even the most prestigious OTB tournaments. It’s going to happen but it will not stop me from enjoying this form of chess.
Another person posted the statement that “Paul Keres attributed his playing strength to playing hundreds of games at once and I thought this was a good reccomendation.”
I agree.
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris
Dear Susan,
I pondered your response to my post and agree with you 100%. In todays world, especially in America, people are wanting everything much quicker (i.e. their daily news, food service…your fast-food analogy is correct). Hence, we live in the “information age.”
I see it all the time teaching history. I assign a term paper and many students’ first inclination is to go to the Internet to find a quick answer rather than read the book.
It seems that society has moved to wanting instant gratification.
I think this is one reason correspondence chess isn’t as popular as it was 50 years ago. But, it is still quite popular.
Marketing, as you said, is another problem just as it is with chess in general.
With the growth of scholastic chess and college/university chess leagues, I’m optimistic that chess will grow.
Thank you and I certainly hope you are elected to the USCF board so some much needed change can occur and serious issues can be openly discussed for the greater good of chess.
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
I’m surprised by this thread. I would certainly use computers if I played correspondence chess and I wouldn’t regard it as cheating at all. I was under the impression it was actually allowed by the rules, and anyway I would have thought the whole appeal of the thing was to try and understand the position and play the very best moves you can. Computers aren’t perfect and don’t always agree with each other.
When I did play it a bit the main reason I stopped was the clerical burden and lack of time. I can’t be doing with people who claim wins on time when you fail to respond because of some work crisis, take your queen when you’ve written the wrong move down, and the like. Of course they’re entirely within their rights, but I found it unappealing.
Percy.
Specifically to Mr. Ginsburg et al;
Unfortunately, both ICCF-US and the USCF (for the Absolute Championship) have poor rules which allow a slow opponent to win a game because of dragging it out.
In the 15th Final, Mr. Chalker died and all of his games, even if finished, were changed to losses. Mr. Dunne already published in Chess Life the game he lost to Chalker but had reversed to a win.
In the USCF Absolute Championship, if you do not finish a game before the tournament ends, the game is scored a draw. In the Absolute Championship that Mr. Duliba won, he dragged out a dead lost endgame against the leader until USCF called it a draw, making him a co-champion. The rule may have been changed since, but it is easy to see what inspired Mr. Duliba’s comment!
As to computers, it is odd than no one mentioned the recent Hydra matches. Hydra crushed super-GM Adams at normal time controls, just after it was trounced 0-2 by ICCF correspondence GM Nickel. Computers have good tactics but no strategy or planning. When a human being spends hours a day for a few days on a position, he/she can find moves that no computer will.
Most cc players consult computers from time to time but not a lot. Programs miss too much at this rate of speed, when the players do not tire or forget their analysis.
CC GM Robin Smith has written a wonderful book called Modern Chess Analysis which lists dozens of cc positions that computer programs either can’t solve or downright blunder in, because the strategical ideas are too deep for them.
One thing is for certain; modern cc play is a very high level, and the games are at least as accurate as GM games in Chess Life. Good games to study!
Work commitments prevented me from playing OTB and I switched to CC. The improvement in my chess skill as a result was enormous – you understand more positions much more deeply and can transfer it to OTB. Every position is equivalent to an hours worth of real study.
As for computers, it was not an issue – I analysed each position as deeply as I could, played the best move I could find. Then at the end of the game, I tried to find the errors in my analysis. If I played against a computer, no problem. In any case, opponents made enough mistakes that computers cannot have been used very much.
I found Chessworld.net to be an excellent place for casual games and at my rating level people don’t take it too seriously.
Since most CC is no longer played by post cards but rather by Email or, with the ICCF and USCF’s “Walter Muir e-Quad” tournaments, they’re played via webserver.
Therefore, the issue of “clerical burden” as one anon stated: “When I did play it a bit the main reason I stopped was the clerical burden and lack of time.”
Clerical burden? It’s no different than writing one’s moves down when playing OTB…only you’ve got even more time in CC.
Also, with most CC being played via Email or webserver, this issue of losing on time is not much of an issue at all.
Ken said:
“One thing is for certain; modern cc play is a very high level, and the games are at least as accurate as GM games in Chess Life. Good games to study!”
I agree completely! And the high level of play comes not from “computer cheating” but skills gained from playing CC over a long period of time.
Correspondence Chess can certainly make anyone a better player.
Finally, regarding certain rules in CC such as when a player dies their games are forfeited. Well, rules can be changed and as we all know, even in OTB play rules must be reviewed periodically to ensure that they “change with the times.”
Overall, CC is great and with Email and webservers available, it’s even better than ever!
Tim
“I’m surprised by this thread. I would certainly use computers if I played correspondence chess and I wouldn’t regard it as cheating at all.”
It’s suppose to human mind and skill vs human, mind a strenuous battle where I’m pitting my creativity wits and my will against the other guy with no outside help from other players or advice from computers at all.
If you don’t win a game entirely with your own efforts and skill then it’s worthless waste.
Correspondence chessplayers have traditionally been allowed to research their moves by looking up other games, etc. Using a computer is arguably no different. I mean, if you Google the move sequence to find a reply, is that somehow more honorable than firing up Fritz?
The important thing is to make sure that both players agree at the outset as to what kind of assistance is allowed during the game.
Almost nobody cheats in correspondence chess for 2 reasons:
1) Who are you fooling really? Just yourself. The other players don’t know you. They are only measuring their own skill. If they’re playing against a 2700 player they know the skill level they’re up against and it doesn’t matter if it is really Kramnik on the other side or Fritz. Eventually cheaters lose interest in fooling themselves.
2) The long game times is also a disincentive to cheating. Can you really sustain the interest to cheat in a game running over months?
play CC at http://www.schemingmind.com i hope Susan doesn’t mind the plug. I don’t own the website, I just play there. It’s great.
Plug away! Anything that is good for our chess community is great!
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Dear Susan,
I’ve gathered some material about Correspondence Chess that I will Email to you rather than post on your blog. If you see anything you like, then you can choose some (if any) to post.
I know you’re very busy and that you get thousands of Emails each day so I’m in no hurry at all and realize it might take some time for you to look through this material.
However, I just wanted to let you know that I’m doing my research and will get back to you in the near future with material on the topic of CC.
Thanks again for your kind assistance…and Happy Valentine’s Day!
Best Wishes,
Tim Harris
Just a few points.
1. There are plenty of organisations and sites one can play correspondence chess nowadays. They differ in many ways:
a) engine rules (some allow using computers for analysis – like ICCF, IECG with its chess-server.net and a few other, most others disallow it)
b) move transmission method (postcards, email, webserver – sometimes a few simultaneously)
c) game clocks (from postcard-derived 40/50 days for 10 moves, via more modern fischer clocks or systems with timebank, to primitive N days per move)
d) rating system
e) look&feel, detailed features, etc
f) players crowd
g) cost
…
2. Using engine can be called (c)heating only if one uses it in the place where it is forbidden. So you (c)heat on chessworld, gameknot, IECC or schemingmind, but you do *not* cheat on ICCF or IECG.
BTW, using engines is a problem for both. Where it is legal, it turns out that teenagers with strong computers are suddenly able to succesfully compete with everybody except the very strict top (I’ve heard opinions that postmasters reach 2400 ICCF). Where it is unlegal, it is not trivial to detect and prove (and usually there is some ratio of players, who cheat).
3. Casual correspondence chess survives its boom nowadays. More and more people find theirselves unable (due to family or work constraints) to play OTB games, or even slow-time internet games. Casual correspondence chess gives perfect replacement, where one plays slow, thinking games – but is able to take a break when necessary and pick preferable time.
4. Some people already mentioned chessworld.net. A few other interesting servers I visited:
gameknot.com, redhotpawn.com (both more-or-less equivalent to chessworld in terms of features, interface and players crowd, but every one using different interface), schemingmind.com (smaller, but more ‘friendly’ – great support for game talks encourages communication),
igame.ru (less sophisticated but visited by plenty of Russian players). Quite a lot of players tend to try a few such sites, playing a game or a two here and there, before deciding which one suits them most.
5. I am an amateur, so others opinion can vary, but I believe that one year of correspondence on schemingmind improved my chess far more, than four years of FICS blitz.
I beleive computer usage is allowed, and the aim of correspondence chess is to use computer calculation as deep as possible. Then with this database openings would be improved. Or you could use CC databases for tournement opening preparation. Just download ICCF database and choose pone opening. They may have deepest analysis. So i would not manipulate myself by thinking it will improve my chess. Playing itself CC is not an improving process. The process of chosing a starategy and using CC databases could be the realistic benefit expectation from it. Regards / Salih Sever