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

Internet Radio Chess (IRC)

I find this topic very interesting. I've read some (by no means all!) of the posts, and one element of "Online Chess" that I haven't seen mentioned is the element of simultaneous play.  We're all focusing (appropriately enough) on the time element, but for me another defining characteristic of Online Chess is that I typically have many games going at once.

I suppose it's possible that some people open more than one chess.com window and play simultaneous Live Chess games; but I doubt that this is a common practice. I think that most Live Chess players play one game at a time, whereas most Online Chess players play multiple games at a time.

How about "Simultaneous Chess," or "Simul Chess," for a different take on the naming problem?

Before the Internet was around, people played speed chess in parks and elsewhere. Only because you might not like it doesn't make it less chess-like. Aren't all games of chess for fun.
Correspondence chess wasn't only played because there are so few good players in the world who are interested in chess at all.
Much like golf, it was never a very popular game.

Now that the Internet is here, far more people can play chess in many different ways whenever they want.

By real chess I was speaking of chess at the highest-level & depth of thought. All the truly '' brilliant '' showpiece games of last few centuries are placed in this field.

Whilst interesting as speed & blitz chess are they are not real-chess in that sense & will never achieve same level of play or greatness to be considered thus.

Chess is ancient-game & traditions should be respected. Not desirable for newcomers to chess to think that blitz-chess is the apogee of the game & disdain the heritage.

If you simply want to move the pieces around the board & have fun then maybe stick to blitz-chess & be happy at that level.

Kind of baffled by your thinking re: comment about golf ? But will leave that one to the golfers. :)

Online chess is virtual correspondence chess. So,call it what it is.

                       Virtual Correspondence Chess              

I know, but what you say is just opinion, as you say "they are not real-chess in that sense". It's very similar to when people say that pop music isn't "real" music according to their standards, even though most enjoy it more, as simple as it is. Pop music still remains as real as Mozart's work.

Only top level players can appreciate the complex games anyway. Many of the moves would be lost on the majority as to why, for example, that queen is just hanging for several moves and can be captured by a pawn, but isn't.

It comes down to liking it. You prefer a style of play that takes longer to see further. This in no way makes it more authentic. You also have to remember that your opponent has the same amount of time to see your thought process and can make just as powerful counter moves, and the only difference between the two styles of play are the depth search before making a move.

One might argue that 14 days per move isn't "real chess" either, since you couldn't think though all possible outcomes in such a short time span.

Computers are also making chess playing obsolete as they can see many more possibilities than the best chess players. If great thought into each move makes it more fun to play, then you would play against computers all the time.

All games: tennis, backgammon, Call of Duty; can be played as simple or as complex as one is willing to put effort into studying it. It's a personal choice that comes down to what's fun for you, not what's correct or real due to history. (I think I may never understand why time-honored tradition is seen by so many as "right." E.g., Curse words are "wrong." Why? who knows. It's just been that way for too long for anyone to think different about it.)

As for tradition, you're talking about a minority that feel they have more clout over the masses from history's sake alone. But the game was played that way because the Internet had yet to be invented. This can be somewhat analogous to golf, where few people play it, but are more prominent so it appears to be more popular than it really is. If the masses were ever to be able to play, they would change the game with their "simple" style of playing it.

Maybe i don't want chess simplified & over in 1/0 trivial, finito & on to the next as that is not my concept of the true game ? I have a feeling many others are in accord with this.

The type of chess you are seeking/admire appears to me PS3/X-box360 junk & would be disregarded by serious chess-players ?

Is this a serious chess-website or a junk games website ??

You said "Correspondence chess was real chess." So unless the post office or email goes away, you can still play against those that play that way.

The overall website is irrelevant. This site attracts all types of playing styles and thus will pull in a lot of players that are not very good and have better things to do in life then chess. (It is just a game after all). The rating should be of greater importance if you're looking to only play these serious players.

I read a post not too long ago from someone with a decent rating who posted a 2 minutes long game and in the comments was told that she should play longer games to improve. She said that she used to study chess all the time a few years back, but it just wasn't fun. She wasn't going to go professional, so what was the point. She decided instead she'd rather have fun.

To each his own.

Well that is ''an'' opinion. Do you have similar ideas for baseball & american football ? Trivialise, make obsolete & shift online/virtual ??

Think heritage/tradition has some importance.

Which ratings do you speak of FIDE or chess.com ?

The relativeratings of where ever you are playing at.

You said before "The type of chess you are seeking/admire appears to me PS3/X-box360 junk." I never said anything that implied this about me personally. Just others in general.

I take my online chess games seriously. I'm not sure how you define seriously though. My online chess win ratio is about 70%. i don't play to lose when I play that. I just also like to have fun with shorter games. They don't help me improve, but I don't see how playing 50+ games at once is much different than playing a shorter 10 minute long game.

At the ratings level we are both at, I notice people tend to play much as they do in short online games. My last game I played the guy took a pawn with a knight clearly hanging. He had two days to make a move.

I looked at one of your games www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=46228196
Move 39, you move Nxa3 while down a pawn, and lost a full minor piece. You only needed to look ahead about 2 moves.
Move 42. Rb4 as his response seems much less forcing than Nd2, as the rook had no where to go and it's purpose to protect the a pawn.

Here's the thing. Are you one of the serious players. You both have 5 days to make a move, and I saw these almost immediately.
I actually wish I could play online chess against serious players that put more thought into each move instead of playing 50+ games at once. My only other option is to play higher rated players, but they tend to win easy.

But i am not a serious chess-player. I am an alcoholic & blunder continously as a result. Nevertheless whilst admiring a decent-tradition of bltz-chess for example walking to central-park or Times-Square to play I cannot consider that this should be advocated to replace real chess ?

Additionally you propose to do so online negating the health-benefits to be had from walking to the chess-venue to do this & instead do all on your computer.

Will this not add to obesity problems ??

Chess.com ratings are in general over-inflated by approx 200-300 points in comparison to genuine FIDE ratings I would not obsess over them..

Is that a game challenge ?  $10 & your on... :)

Um, this conversation is interesting, but have we lost sight of the topic?

True... '' Correspondence Chess '' !  :)

Geez, what a mess.

I don't live in New York. In my area, there might be a small handful of chess players in the world. I'm not sure either how expanding chess replaces it. I would think you would hate chess 960 and the hundreds of true variants. But what do you care if someone else wants to play it differently from you. Are you afraid there will be no one left to play it against. I think the population of the Earth negates that.

If you are also against this computer version we have now, why are you a member here.

@ chessplayer11

Would you like to play a game of chess960.  Send challenge & I will consider it ?

What computer version have we got now ??

Oops?! We noticed the following errors in your form:ot

chessplayer11 is currently not available for challenges.lfor challenges. Trychallenging another member.

Never played it before. As such, my rating is below your set minumum.

Hmmmm....maybe 960 should have a different name?!?