Correspondence requires a lot of patience. 1-7 or even 14 days for another move, sometimes even i the opening. 2. e5. It might require over 6 months or more to finnish games. Drives me crazy. A disandvantage of having multiple games, 50 or so, is that i tend to forget plans/tactics for each game.
When it is played faster, i.e. a few moves a day, it is quit nice though. Still the plans are hard to remember. It is also less exciting than live, for me at least.
Correspondence Chess through snail mail or on a server is fine if you don't have time to play OTB due to family obligations and other reasons it works out really well when both players respect the honor code and don't use computers or consult third party players.
True CC players don't have to be strong armed when they give their word to their opponents and the organization they play for they won't use them they really mean it.
Living ... it's just inahling and exhaling, with the occasional case of gas in your digestive tract.
I played six games of snail mail correspondance before computers and it helped me go from the 1500s to the 1700s in OTB chess. I would have liked to do more but didn't have time back then. Now, I have a friend who does correspondance and he comes across issues with opponents using computers. I'm doing one game of online correspondance now and while I like it, I end up feeling like I spend too much time on it analyzing positions...time I could be spending actually learning from books or videos how to play this dang game.
I think that corr. chess is a marvelous opportunity to hone your analysis skill - as you're not reasonably limited on time and can really look at everything - you can move the pieces, you can write your conclusions - so you really get in the habit of analyzing variations, evaluating positions, slowly and at your ease, with no pressure.
Another great feature in corr. chess is that you really get to study an opening deeply (as databases are allowed) as you're playing the game, which also gives you the incentive to do it.
That said, I have played under ten corr. games in my life (all on this server, all in 2014). I have stopped after my three (!!!) last opponents, all rated in the 2000s, turned out to be cheaters.
Early detection meant that I was awarded all three wins (don't ask about the positions though...) and saw my corr. rating propelled - but in some way I feel that I was robbed of the experience... might come back to it again at some point though.
That said, I have played under ten corr. games in my life (all on this server, all in 2014). I have stopped after my three (!!!) last opponents, all rated in the 2000s, turned out to be cheaters.
How did you detect them to be cheaters while the game was in progress? The only reliable way I know is to match their moves to a computer, and it seems like that method would be forbidden during a CC game.
I love correspondacne chess--------------I play 3 days for a move at the most. The longest a game took was maybe 5-6 weeks and that was a 60-70 move game, not close to 6 months. I think some people are paranoid on here, and think that everyone has a chess engine. I do look at people's records before I play them, and if they are using a chess engine it is not working that good. I think the percentage of people who have chess engines is pretty low.
Correspondence on this site is definitely more suited to players substantially lower rated than yourself imo, because of cheating. I also imagine that the best cc players will draw fairly often, or am I wrong to assume so? (I don't really know, it just seems likely to me)
I play a lot of Online Chess here an it rarely ends in a draw. I can see why someone might believe it would happen more; with all that time, both sides should be able to play equally strong moves the entire time.
However, the problem here is that not everyone has the ability to find the strongest move available.
As for the cheating issue that others have mentioned, I don't think I have encountered many if any cheaters. Or if I have they, as richb said, are bad at cheating.
Short has never held a moderate POV in his life. I wouldn't worry about it.
I knew a well-meaning guy who played CC games and for him it was a slippery slope.
At first he would occasionally take a look at the engine's recommendation out of curiosity before posting his move. Then he would occasionally post the engine's move if he thought it was better. Then he started doing it more often. And finally he was caught however people like that are caught.
He was mortified and confessed and stopped playing CC games.
I knew a well-meaning guy who played CC games and for him it was a slippery slope.
At first he would occasionally take a look at the engine's recommendation out of curiosity before posting his move. Then he would occasionally post the engine's move if he thought it was better. Then he started doing it more often. And finally he was caught however people like that are caught.
He was mortified and confessed and stopped playing CC games.
Yeah, I can see that happening. Probably many who cheat didn't set out to cheat, it just happened that way.
Correspondence chess is great for playing at work, log in, spend a few seconds on each move and log out
I knew a well-meaning guy who played CC games and for him it was a slippery slope.
At first he would occasionally take a look at the engine's recommendation out of curiosity before posting his move. Then he would occasionally post the engine's move if he thought it was better. Then he started doing it more often. And finally he was caught however people like that are caught.
He was mortified and confessed and stopped playing CC games.
Knew a guy who would just look at the evaluation... not the moves, just the eval (we played often, so I wasn't holding it against him, even though it was cheating).
Each week after that though he was getting better and better. I usually beat him, but after a month he was usually beating me, usually with a crazy sacrifice I never even considered. I stopped playing him.
<Alexm> not necessarily... (about drawing). Stronger players see more ideas - and sometimes these are not exactly the same ideas... so games can also be won and lost, not only drawn.
<Imirak> suffice it to say that I have my own detection methods. They don't always rely on the game in progress... :-)
Sorry if I'm being mysterious - but I like to keep cheaters (who read this thread) guessing...
Their end is always the same - WHAN BAN THANK YOU MAN!!
I love correspondence chess! As a strictly android user it's the only way I can play. In fact for android phones it's the best way to play. You can play an assortment of games at the same time and get alerts when it's your move. There's no lag, no miss-moves, and I feel like I learn more from the games I play. It also feels like the games are better. I'm happy and if anyone wants to ever play a game friend me.
The goal for AI is to be "human". Eventually a chess program will be created that is so "human" it cannot be detected. That will be the end of CC.
The goal for AI is to be "human". Eventually a chess program will be created that is so "human" it cannot be detected. That will be the end of CC.
That may be the holy grail, but since roughly the 70s no one's cared to work on it from that angle due to raw calculation being so effective, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
The goal for AI is to be "human". Eventually a chess program will be created that is so "human" it cannot be detected. That will be the end of CC.
In correspondence chess engines are mostly allowed. ( Not here ofcourse)
He just said this commentating on the London Chess Classic (implying that is just an engine war), apparently he doesn't like correspondence chess.
I'm interested on hearing what other top OTB players think of correspondence chess besides Short. Anybody have any quote/interview?
Edit: Of course Short was talking about professional correspondence chess where engine use is allowed.