Correspondence Chess (high brow) VS Blitz (low class)

Sort:
Avatar of small-titan

Correspondence chess is for the chess aristocracy. Blitz is for the lower classes, unwashed masses.
Correspondence chess is like fine dining at a classy restaurant -- while Blitz is like a greasy burger with plastic cheese.

How do we popularize Correspondence chess and elevate the masses from their plight?

Avatar of chessterd5

I like them both.

Correspondence chess is it's own thing. you either enjoy it or you don't. I like having time to think.

Avatar of Wits-end

I rarely play time frames less than one day. I'm terrible at fast play. I'm only marginally better at daily games, but better none the less.

Avatar of BlueScreenRevenge

As much as I like correspondence chess, the best of the best here play blitz and bullet.

I highly doubt you'd be able to convince this dude to play a daily game: https://www.chess.com/member/magnuscarlsen

Avatar of Bogopawn657

Propper correspondence chess is not played on sites such as Lichess, or Chess com if you won't to rub shoulders with some legends, earn yourself a real chance at a normal in correspondence chess then only one site to play on that I.C C F.

Avatar of BlueScreenRevenge

ICCF allows engines. Not the kind of chess I would want to play.

Avatar of Wits-end
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:

ICCF allows engines. Not the kind of chess I would want to play.

Serious?! If true, why would anyone want to play ICCF?

Avatar of BlueScreenRevenge
Wits-end wrote:
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:

ICCF allows engines. Not the kind of chess I would want to play.

Serious?! If true, why would anyone want to play ICCF?

It's not just mindless use of an engine, like running it for N days and playing the top move. It is about using several engines, knowing their strengths and weaknesses, applying your chess understanding to pick the right move, etc.

Human + engines > an engine.

If you are into this kind of stuff, it is perfectly fine and can be fun. I am not.

Avatar of Wits-end
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:
Wits-end wrote:
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:

ICCF allows engines. Not the kind of chess I would want to play.

Serious?! If true, why would anyone want to play ICCF?

It's not just mindless use of an engine, like running it for N days and playing the top move. It is about using several engines, knowing their strengths and weaknesses, applying your chess understanding to pick the right move, etc.

Human + engines > an engine.

If you are into this kind of stuff, it is perfectly fine and can be fun. I am not.

Ah, i see. Not for me. Thanks!

Avatar of chessterd5
Wits-end wrote:
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:

ICCF allows engines. Not the kind of chess I would want to play.

Serious?! If true, why would anyone want to play ICCF?

it's true. ICCF allows engine use. That type of chess is not about one person winning over another. It's about the search for perfect in any given position. Imagine entire games just being a long list of opening theory. My understanding is that most games end in a draw.

Avatar of RussBell

Chess.com "Daily" is correspondence chess......online!

Avatar of Wits-end

I thank you greatly! Being retired and still considered young is a compliment, even if in a condescending manner. To be sure, you're correct, there are waves of insanely stupid and delusional self-appointed authorities all around us. It seems like CC has more than its share.

Avatar of chessterd5

But every top player since Alekhine has consulted correspondence chess games. Either they themselves or any number of people who help him prepare for a game or a match. correspondence chess is where new theory is developed throughout all stages of the game. there have been endgames that have been solved through correspondence chess.

It's like saying a writer has no use for a dictionary, or a thesaurus. Or that running a 4 minute mile is not as much of an achievement as winning a 100 yard dash. every thing has its place.

Avatar of small-titan
RussBell wrote:

Chess.com "Daily" is correspondence chess......online!

Yes, I know that. I'm playing "daily" games instead of blitz -- and find it much more fulfilling:
* Learning more deeply about chess (calculation, planning etc).
* Much higher quality of games (not mindless reactions in seconds).
* Flexibility (option to play many daily games or just the one).

I want others to have this same experience and am wondering how we promote it to players.

Avatar of small-titan
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:

Personally I believe there should be a rule that someone only spend a few minutes on a position and move on, ...

So only "cheeseburger" chess...

because otherwise the problem with correspondance is it can easily drift into who studies the position the most, consulting literature about the position, and so on.

That's a reasonable point and a time limit per move can be added to make sure that doesn't happen.

Overall correspondance for me is way, way down the list of intelligence - with a lot of pseudointellectuals.

Correspondence requires very deep calculation and planning -- which requires a high IQ and good memory. Blitz is more play by hand than brain.

Avatar of play4fun64
small-titan wrote:

Correspondence chess is for the chess aristocracy. Blitz is for the lower classes, unwashed masses.
Correspondence chess is like fine dining at a classy restaurant -- while Blitz is like a greasy burger with plastic cheese.

How do we popularize Correspondence chess and elevate the masses from their plight?

Correspondence Chess is overrated. Thinking an hour every move? Classical OTB is the best!

Avatar of immaterialgirls

Correspondence was an interesting variant when letters were the dominant form of long distance communication since the ample time involved permitted virtually perfect play. Many opening ideas and variants were first explored in this context. However, computers and chess engines have rendered correspondence almost completely obsolete since the risk of engine play is so high. If I want to play stockfish, Ill just boot up my laptop and go to town. Additionally, any very high level correspondence games you see are likely created with engine assistance on both sides.

It's very likely that all future explorations of opening ideas will be done with engine assistance, making correspondence a futile and overall uninteresting game.

Avatar of x-5473292804

Most often I don't have the patience to play 10 minutes/rapid. Don't infer my degree of sophistication. Maybe I just have ADHD.

Avatar of small-titan
immaterialgirls wrote:

Correspondence was an interesting variant when letters were the dominant form of long distance communication since the ample time involved permitted virtually perfect play. Many opening ideas and variants were first explored in this context. However, computers and chess engines have rendered correspondence almost completely obsolete since the risk of engine play is so high. If I want to play stockfish, Ill just boot up my laptop and go to town. Additionally, any very high level correspondence games you see are likely created with engine assistance on both sides.

It's very likely that all future explorations of opening ideas will be done with engine assistance, making correspondence a futile and overall uninteresting game.

For most people it's no fun winning by cheating... what's the point of cheating on an anonymous / no prize fund site? Besides chess.com does cheating detection as well.

Avatar of play4fun64

For online chess, Rapid is best. Blitz is too fast to create Immortal games.