A Vote on how lame you think Correspondence is?

I love correspondence chess... perfect for me. Much of the time I dont have time for any live chess. If anything... I can also look into a position deeper than I can ever do during live chess.

Correspondence chess is a central component in how I study openings. Naturally, I have written about it several times on my blog at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/

Here's a post from June:

16 June 2015

Applied Study

 

Correspondence Chess

Research is a central pleasure of correspondence chess. Using opening books, databases, and both print and electronic versions of Chess Informant elevates my play in the short run and expands my over the board repertoire in the long run.

As I was finishing high school and starting college, I played in a US Chess Federation Correspondence tournament in which moves were sent via postcard. My only opening book in those days was I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). After finishing graduate school, I entered a few more USCF postal events. I bought the A volume of Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) and tried to steer my games to lines that were found therein. I also bought Informant 64. One of the games in that issue was especially helpful in a game against Faneuil Adams, Jr. (see "Playing by the Book").

In the early 2000s, I made the switch from postcard to email for correspondence chess. Then, in 2003, I started playing on websites where move transmission was a matter of clicking and dragging a chess piece on a computer screen. Record keeping is handled by the website. Move transmission in this new form of correspondence chess differs enough from postcards and email, that many players no longer think of it as correspondence chess.

I learned a lot playing in a Spanish Opening thematic on the first of these websites that I joined. I scored a nice victory on the Black side of the Chigorin variation and also made my first efforts with the Marshall Attack.

By the time I was playing turn-based chess, as some call this online correspondence chess, I had all five volumes of ECO and a library near 200 volumes, including many specialized texts on my favorite openings. Now I have ECO in both print and electronic editions, and I have all 123 Chess Informants in electronic versions (Informant 124 comes out next week--I've ordered book and CD).


The Study Regimen

Sitting at the table with a chess board and opening monograph and systematically working through the lines may be a worthwhile study technique. I am certain that is how many players learn their openings. That is also what I did in the late 1970s with Horowitz when I was supposed to be working on my high school homework. But, for me, such study is a rare activity.

My book study more often consists of working through entire games, such as those by Paul Morphy, or middle game books, or Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, a book that I have as both print and Kindle (see Pawn Endings Flash Cards).

On the other hand, all of my opening resources come out during some of my correspondence games. Last week when I logged into ChessWorld.net, I discovered that a new team match had begun, adding eight new games to my load. It is time to hit the books.

Against one opponent, I am trying a new line against the Tarrasch French that is recommended in both The Flexible French (2008) by Viktor Moskalenko, and The Modern French (2012) by Dejan Antic and Branimir Maksimovic. Using my ChessBase database, I located games in this line played by Moskalenko and by Antic. I am studying these games.

Against another opponent, I opted to play the King's Gambit. I have been deploying the King's Gambit in many of my blitz and bullet games the past few weeks. I also played in in one of my worst tournament games ever (see "Knowing Better"). The King's Gambit has been an occasional weapon for me off and on since the 1970s. Because one of my top students plays it, I am studying it again. I watched Simon Williams' King's Gambit video series on Chess.com. John Shaw, The King's Gambit (2013) arrives tomorrow.

As I play through my correspondence games, I study the relevant portions of the opening lines in these books and others. I look up the positions inChess Informant and examine some of the games. During one recent correspondence game, I went through every one of the more than one hundred games ever published in Informant that had reached the position I had at that moment. That work took the better part of a weekend. The game might have ended as a draw, but my opponent was banned for cheating and I won on time.

Sometimes I use Chess.com's Game Explorer or ChessBase to play the percentages, choosing lines that have scored well in the past for my side of the board. When I have the time, I look for lines that score well for my opponent, but that have a recent refutation in Informant or some other collection of annotated games. Knowing that many of my opponents use the same databases that I do, I try to beat them with better research.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2015/06/applied-study.html

I never play more than 3 votechess games at once (although I do on teams, but then I can afford to not analyze every single move deeply and rely on teammates to blunder check me, etc.).  Playing 3 games means I can devote about 30 minutes/move (sometimes over an hour for key positions); also, I only have 3 physical boards set up for analysis at once ;).  This is how you learn opening theory and positional play.  Playing 30 games is insane.

Thanks for the ratings points...

It's so much work to do it correctly that it starts to feel like the end of the semester when all your papers are due at once.  And then there are the 8 or 10 chess boards clustered around "chess central"...Enough already.  Well, for now...  EDIT: New smileys bring a frown, which I'd show but it's lame :-(  

OH wait, I'm back in V2 now.  Oh happy days!  

Agreed. In this case, however, White did okay.

Correspondence chess is your first choice cure against hope chess and lazy thinking.

On a personal note, I limit the amount of games I play simultaneously. 5 games is ideal. No more than 8, otherwise I lose focus and play poorly.

not more than 15 games at a time!

Im surprised to see how much people think cc is real deal. For me is in last place and i believe for many others.

Yes ofcorse, no doubt. For many players , who travel a lot, have busy schedule or are bad at 5-10 min games, or does not have time for 30+ complete chess game, or  hate time presure, or simply want to think for 3-4 moves only for a day, or just want fun and solve dozens of problems or whatever ongoing games they have - cc is best.

But there should be zero attetion to cc rating. Nobody will look at your cc rating - it is not real chess rating for obvious reasons.

The long and short of it is that it isn't for instant gratification junkies.

The game isn't lame it's how you play it.

It's an easy distinction...if you are a person who loves to compete and beat people down, forcing them to blunder under time pressure, then blitz is for you.  Any number of other games are also fine for you, since it's about winning a lot.  Rock-paper-scissors will produce wins faster.

If you are all about the beauty of chess itself and want to see best possible play from both sides, and cringe when your opponent blunders in an otherwise perfect game thinking "what a shame, that would have been a great game", then you will enjoy correspondence play.

If you ever want to be listed on 2700chess, then you'd better learn to appreciate the latter viewpoint.  You'll constantly hear many class A and expert players going on about how they crushed opponents, and a horrible mistake-filled game ending in a gratuitous queen sac is the highlight of their tournament...but grandmasters generally prefer a well played draw to any game where their opponent just blundered it away.  Rightly so:  just because your opponent loses, does not mean you have actually won or shown anything of your own skill.

I played an IM who had at least hundreds of games going, at one point. While we were playing he timed out of several dozen games, bringing his rating from 2300 to 1700... and then he won hundreds more, bringing it back up again. Very strange.

yeah I like correspondence it's about all I play I don't have time for live games and blitz kills my normal play because I start rushing moves

You haven't played enough here, then im sure you will know what i mean.

But no.

You have time pressure in chess in every single game. Thats is how game is played. Without it is not exacly chess. It will be like a game between old retired people. CC is not the way you will improve or see beauty of the game  not by making 1 moves  in one or few days  - better try puzzles - there you will see beauty and will improve you.. Both sides will not play at their best, unless they are specialised in cc and play this for many years.. Not the majority here i think. Ppl have 15 or 50 or hundreds of ongoing games and litery they spend secods on a move or few minutes., they are not playing their best or to improve or to see beauty. Even Danny does not care when he plays cc.

I agree on part where you say a good game is one where both players are equal strong and game is not decided by single blunder or sac. Thats called positional play. Do you know you can still have very good positional game in 25+10 or 90/30 time control? And if it is otb, then actually you will be 100 sure for fair play. But the skill of a chess player is measured also on how well he spent his time - thats a chess skill. When to make a sac or to force opp to blunder is a beauty too.

Simple solution: don't play it.  But it obviously has value to other people.  And I saw your other comment about how it doesn't improve your game.  You are wrong -- for one thing it allows you to deeply explore openings and refine your repertoire.  Likewise for deeply exploring endings.

First, with all due respect, because I like him...Danny is an ADHD sufferer who can't keep his attention focused on anything for more than 10 minutes...so, bad example.  That's why he never made it past IM.  He's good for rambling on in commentary and for generating extra excitement among watchers that can't grasp/appreciate what's actually going on.  He's the Norman Chad of chess.com.  His job is to get the patzers wound up and engaged in what otherwise would be a confusing and boring event for them.

Second, the vast majority of chess players worldwide play without a clock.  I hate to break this to you...but chess is a board game played merely for leisure purposes by 95%+ of the Earth's population ;).  

Third, a chess game between "old, retired people" is still chess, and is in no way deficient compared to any other games played by any other players.  To think otherwise is prejudicial and narrow-minded, and I hope Joel Benjamin runs into you anonymously at some chess coffeehouse and cleans your clock for you, winning everything in your wallet ;).

"Thats called positional play."

Yes, I know...I said as much in my first post in this thread.  See?  Attention to detail is not the strong suit of the blitz player...

Sorry to break it for you, but game without clock otb still will finish quickly. A player whos turn is will not stare for hours or days, becouse he will feel presure someone is waiting him, even without clock :). And why we are talking globally. My post at first place were abou cc here, but you have no idea about, becouse you have next to zero games.

And yes, game with clock is very very different you should know that, you have more blitz games :))) End of story, i feel bad arguing with *** people or with those who does not care really about the site.

Thanks James! I've always enjoyed your posts and blog.