A Vote on how lame you think Correspondence is?

I just lost yet another game because I was just making a causal move because I am currently playing over 30 games... I don't know for me for Correspondence my mind doesn't really stay in the game and when I start to play I forget to analyze the game deeply enough, or whatever and end up over looking something simple you know you wouldn't have made that mistake if you where focused on the game but you can't stay focused on a game you leave to another day.  Who else thinks Correspondence is lame?  I'm going to quit it all together.  After I am done with these games it's over.  I've had it!

good choice.  people only played it back in the day because that was all they had.  maybe if you're in jail it's reasonable to play but come on with the internet there is no reason to wait days between moves.  just hop on a live chess server and play no need for this emailing moves back and forth garbage.

If you hate it, you shouldn't play it.

I like them. I have other things to do so they really work for me. I do have to limit the number of games I do at once though.

I don't really have the time to devote to standard live games, and I don't really dig rapid or blitz. Correspondence is pretty much perfect for me. But your issue sounds like a you problem, and not a problem with correspondence chess.

Correspondence chess is perfect for me, as well. I hate doing anything under time pressure. With correspondence chess, you get to treat every move like a chess problem, thinking it out very thoroughly and playing your absolute best. 

It can also be an excellent learning tool, since you can use databases, books, or chess engines to learn--not specific moves but--strategies/approaches to positions where you're not sure what to do. 

Yep, exactly, the problem is with the poster of the OP.  First off, he was stupid enough to have 30 games going on at once.  Huge mistake!  Should never have more than maybe a dozen going at a time!

Eh, there's been times where I've had a couple of dozen games going on at once, but that's pretty much the upper limit that I'm comfortable with playing. Believe it or not there was one player on this site (not sure if he's still around) who became somewhat notorious for having thousands (you read that correctly, thousands) of games at once.

I'm in the stupid category. Over 200 games.

There were two. I think mishrafish was the latest but he went crashing down quite recently.

I'm been doing Online chess for the past year or so exclusively.  i've gone from 1450 to my current rating about 1850 during that time.

So, let me ask you a basic question.  What exactly is your primary goal.  Get a good rating, win alot of games, have fun.

After carefully answering that question, my answer was to simply to be able to play 2100 rated players, and they will respect my skills, they will be impressed.  "Wow, that guy really knows what he is doing."  

My skill set will include a working knowledge of color weakness, principles of exchanging pieces, how to formulate and carry out a plan, coordination of pieces -- piece placement.  Virtually no tactical blunders, take advantage of my opponent's positional blunders.

So, here's some advice that I will give my 1450 former self.

1. You won't improve unless you lose alot of games

2. You won't improve unless you play highly rated players.  Ya' want a rating of 2000, you gotta play 2000 rated players.

3. Except for a tournament, I will only play someone who is at least 200 rating points above me.  In the case of my 1450 self, play at least 1800 rated players.

4. I only play 5-10 games at a time.

5. I have a succession of 9 games lost in a row.  That means I am in a slump and something has to change in my playing.  You got to learn how to handle the slump, and what to do ahout it.

6. Finally, I'm not a "real chess player" until I have played 150 or more games -- remember only 5-10 at a time.  I don't take my current rating seriously until I get past that mark.

Best of luck to you.

I've read elsewhere, the ability to rapidly recognize patterns and thereby understand all of the threats in a given chess situation is one aspect separating different levels of chess players.  Better players than I can handle more games at the same time because they almost instantly recognize threats & solutions that I need to think through.  Correspondence chess allows each of us to play as many cames at once as we choose to try to handle.   

If you have three days to make a move, how does "instant recognition" apply to Online chess?  Anyway, that skill comes with experience, and no need to hurry.  This is not blitz, you know.

yep

i agree

its the most intresting and exciting form of chess but its a burden sometimes

No matter how much time you have to make a move, "instant recognition" gives more time for actual thinking.  The actual time I spend looking at a board during a correspondence game is probably less per game than I would spend during an in person game, because the time I spend at the board when playing in person includes the opponent's thinking time too.  

Peppinu wrote:

It sure is much more satisfying than blitz if you ask me...

We have a winner! Blitz is just stupid. A well coordinated monkey could be world champion.

What's lame is starting a forum thread about a chess format being lame because you're losing at it lately

If you want to get a lesser number of games, how about you resign the one against me?