Debate: What to call "Online Chess"...

There is no real debate on this issue; clearly, Correspondence Chess is the most viable title, according to the votes and the discussion.

I seriously doubt that a casual player wouldn't know what the word "correspondence" means. If they don't, then how would you except them to understand something like "live chess"? Also, if a person doesn't know, there is a magical thing called Google. Surely it can't take as much time to type "correspondence chess" into Google as it would take to figure one's way around the site after the extremely confusing redesign?

Using the prevailing term gets in the way of standing out. Chess.com seeks to stand out. Erik has made that clear: the term sought must be appropriate, but also must be new and distinct. The object is to grab more market share, and even to expand the market itself. Convert more casual players into online correspondence players by drawing them into a catchy name for what old hands always will call correspondence chess.

cChess is catchy, but derivative of iWhatever. eChess is not only derivative, but is the name of a competing site.

asynchronous is precise, but so is the mathematical description of how the knight moves: one square on the square (as a rook) followed by another square diagonally (as a bishop) continuing in the general direction away from the square of origin. It is easier to say that it makes an L shape. Imprecise terms are catchier.

Serial Chess! A new suggestion. The term connotes asynchronous, and might be catchy. Moreover, it marks continuinty with correspondence chess, the form that notorious serial killer Claude Bloodgood used to gain his master rating.

On second thoughts,we are really talking on site about "Basic Chess"..it fits the listing nicely.

I strongly agree with benws in #458. Despite its historical roots in traditional mail, correspondence chess can easily be understood to mean that there is a corresponding player on the other side of the screen who makes moves in reply to your own and thus advances the chess game in the same way correspondence chess games have always been played, including the longer time intervals between moves. There is nothing complicated, abstruse, or confusing about that; whereas, it's anybody's guess what most of the names that have been suggested herein might mean. Besides, the word "correspondence" and its variants do not refer to mail only, anyway. Therefore, it would not confine anyone's understanding to the concept of postal mail. So, the name "correspondence chess" maintains a connection with a phrase that all chess players have long understood while naturally expanding it to include computerized play done in a manner that all chess players will easliy and naturally grasp. Thus, "correspondence chess" is the most sensible and best choice.

Ha. Just go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people ask questions they could have just googled. I sincerely doubt that the vast majority of people know what correspondence means.

Everyone keeps saying that correspondence chess is logical. How? I make a move and there is no correspondence at all. I come back and make my move later or if still on the site when they make their move, I play then.

Correspondence would imply messaging of the moves. Even getting an email that it's your turn is just an option. Virtually no one uses email as their primary means of communicating anymore. Why would I keep checking my email to see if it's my turn when I could just go to the site itself? This is mostly chess players clinging to tradition and nothing else.

Reminds me of how in the computer language BASIC you still have the command print, which doesn't print to paper anymore because they made monitors a long time ago. They just haven't changed it ever. But it never became logical to keep it that way. It was just for convenience. It would be difficult to argue backward compatibility 30 years later.

I guarantee that once email becomes as commonly used as IRC is today, people will wonder why it's called correspondence chess, even after they look the term. Being notified by email is the only part that is left that links it to that term.

*agrees*

the name "Chess 960" does not describe much about what it means, but eventually everybody knew (at least people who wanted to know, knew)...

So no big deal if name does not describe much (after all its a name , not a sentense) ...

I think Online chess is good enough..( you may work on the short line that describes in the menu... currently the description line says..

          "Turn based games at anytime"...

this description line  can surely be improved... and improving that would be meaningfull..

do i make sense?

Wait -- do you know why it's called Cess 960?

yes I do... I wanted to know hence i know...

--- Edit-----

Well, if you are hinting that Chess 960 is meaningfull coz "960", I understand..

but it only makes sense after you know what Chess 960 is...

So does "Online Chess" (once you know what it is its over..)

It isnt food its chess, it doesnt come from different animals, it isnt different flavours you dont prepare it differently, you dont only put 4 pieces on a board and charge the earth for it, its just chess.

You made a very bad analogy.

On second thoughts if the reason for new nomenclature is clear differentiation between "Live Chess" and "Online Chess"  (In order to make it less confusing for firsttimers) .. then may be

"Message Chess"  is not a bad idea like someone suggested above..

I just hovered  the mouse over the "Play" menu and visualized "Message Chess" instead of "Online Chess"  it seemed more intuitive.

After all we make our move only after getting a message...

long and short chess, simple enough.

Long is already a category of Live.

but in comparison to 14 day moves it is not long at all.

You don't understand the analogy.

Replace the links to chess960, online chess, live chess, etc with

Chess, Chess, Chess, etc. No one is going to know what you're talking about.

The various formats of chess here are the different animals.

I understood it was just very bad, doesnt work,  and you (i hope for your sake) deliberately missed the point. Are you on the payroll perchance?

No matter what YOU call it, i and everybody else i know will continue to call  it chess, the fact that you cannot come up with a satisfactory replacement ought to conclude the argument, if there was a need to change the name an ideal solution would present itself, yet try as you might.....

Sure, why not. After all we don't just murder one King....