Because opening books can be used in correspondence to help you navigate the opening traps that you might not notice OTB.
Correspondance openings vs OTB openings
Sort:
But wouldn't that just mean the opposite? The player that knows the opening (for example Latvian) and plays it, ought to know the ideas better than the opponent, but in correspondance that perk would loose some of it's sting, since white can attain information that he wouldn't have OTB.
Well the latvian is an opening complicated enough that it would be nice to complicate all of the complicated stuff on a board. Of course, since it's not supposed to be a very good opening, it's probably done for the fun of calculating out interesting variations, because cc is or at least should be taken less seriously. But if they're not playing for fun, then it does seem to be contradicting.
I've encountered this a few times now, and it's the difference between Correspondance openings, and OTB openings. And it's that correspondance openings seems to be alot more aggresive. In MCO Nick De Firmian writes this about the Latvian Gambit "It is played alot in correspondence chess because of the fantastic complications that can arise." And while looking through some Evans gambit games in chessgames.com game explorer, you can that it's been used in a Correspondance World Championship match as late as 1978, a long time after it lost it's popularity.
These two aren't the only instances where I find the idea that gambits are more popular in correspondance than Otb, but these are just two examples at the top of my head. Anyway how come this is? You´d expect gambits to be less popular in correspondance due to the amount of time you can spend on a position, but it seems to be the reverse.
/Signed Tricklev that's thinking about start using the Latvian and Alapin gambit on chess.com