Turn-based v. Live

I play both Turn-based and Live Chess.  Not surprizingly, my level of play is a lot higher in Turn-based as it appears to be for most, but not all chess.com members.  Obviously, near unlimited time, the analysis board, opening books and game explorer are huge advantages for all, but especially those of us at the novice to intermediate level.

However, these advantages carry some hidden weaknesses.

Unlimited time has obvious advantages, but I have made mistakes when I lose the thread of the game and misremember analysis done in a previous session.

The analysis board can reveal risks and opportunities, but it cannot replace the vast review that a trained eye can see in scanning the board.  I have run through several lines and felt like I thoroughly analyzed a position only to miss a bishop hiding in a corner quietly threatening a hanging piece.

Opening books and game explorer can help avoid a fatal blunder in the opening, but they can also cause you to take positions you do not understand and are unprepared to play.  Leading to that lost "okay now what?" feeling when your opponent goes out of the book.

After playing a lot of Turn-based games.  Live chess is frightening.  It feels like walking a tightrope without a net.  But, I believe it is vital to developing true chess skill.  Moreover, I consider my Live rating as a more true measure of my ability.  Of course, OTB is the only "real" chess.  Looking your opponent in the eye and moving real pieces.  Unfortunately, it is more difficult to find those games so internet chess is the reality of the chess most of us play.  Live chess is much closer to real chess than Turn-based chess.

Both are good.  Both are fun.  Both help develop ability.  But those who play only turn-based chess are only developing a part of their ability.  At the moment, I play mostly 10 min Blitz and 15/10 Standard Live games.  10 min Blitz is still a bit fast for me, but 15/10 is reasonable.  The trouble with 15/10 is that it can take up to an hour to finish a game and I often do not have a solid hour to devote to a game. 

Turn-based is nice because  you can make a move or two or analyze a position or two in whatever time chunks are available.  Still, I think live chess is vital to development so I am trying to play at least a couple live games a week and I am focusing on my Live Standard rating as the measure of my progress.

Yes, limiting the number of turn-based games has helped me really get the most out of each one.  I have had close to 40 games going at once in the past and it was stressful to keep up.  At the moment, I am trying to keep my game load under 10.

However, I see some players who play hundreds of games at once and I think there is a benefit to that experience as well.  No analysis board - pure visualization.  Even minimal calculation.  Let your sub-conscious analyze the position and play by feel. 

Not sure I am ready for that experience, but I have considered loading myself up on games during a holiday and trying it.  Problem is that, once you load up on games, it takes longer than a typical holiday to finish them all.

I have seen evidence of that as well when someone loses 150 games on time and goes from 2000 to 1000.  Then destroys everybody in his path on his way back up to 2000.

It has made me think that the rating system should not allow a rating to drop more than 100 points a month or maybe never drop lower than 200 points below the all-time high.  Although it does not happen that much so it is probably not worth worrying about it.  Kind of annoying, though when you get knocked out of a tournament by someone who is rated 400 points below you, but has an all time high 400 points higher than yours.  But that is another forum topic.

Regarding OTB-likeness, the problem with live chess is that on the one hand, even "long" (30 minutes) is much too short to give an adequate OTB-like experience. In a real OTB game, there is almost always that one critical middle game situation where you want to spend 30 minutes on (and maybe another one in the endgame after the time control). On the other hand nobody wants to sit through a six hours game at the computer. So I'd say live chess is rather more for Blitz/fast chess, while turnbase can in fact (if you want it to) be quite like OTB if you just don't use the opening books/databases and the analysis board. It's still not like real OTB, of course, which is the "only real chess" for me (personally) too.

Bubatz, you make an interesting point regarding making turn-based chess like long OTB games by playing without the aid of the analysis board or opening books.  Still, unlimited time is different, but if you are attempting to duplicate a 3 hr time control, that is more time than I would likely use anyway.

I have never played a game either OTB or internet with that long of a time control.  I have considered it from the perspective of each player playing with the same time control, but you make a good point that you own experience does not depend on what your opponent is doing.

I am not sure I have the attention span to play a 3 hour time control OTB game.  I have trouble staying focused on a 15/10 or 30 min Live game online.  I wonder if internet chess attracts a different sort of player.

I agree with Bubatz - OTB is the "only real chess" for me too. The problem is that to play just one game you have to have like entire evening completely free. I can do this only 1-2 times a month when I play for local club in team competitions.

Another problem with OTB - it is very stressful (at least for me) - I don't sleep well after a game and next day am not very functional. In the past I played in a tourney of 7 rounds - one game par week - I lost 2 kilos and was quite exhausted. I know one game per week is a joke compared to what some people play but that's my experience.

As for turn-based - it's a love-hate relationship. It's good for your openings, deep analysis and calculation. You can do it 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there. But it promotes indecisiveness – you get the habit of thinking for a while then postponing the decision for later. When I started playing OTB I had big problem with time controls because of this. Finally it reinforces internet addiction – you go to chess site too often to check if one of your opponents has moved. It happened to me few times to resign all my games just to stop it at once. Now I play it again but only 4-6 games at fast time controls, no analysis board, thinking time for every move similar to OTB.

Finally live chess is fun and gives you some adrenaline rush. I try to play 15+15 or slower games to keep some reasonable quality. But then you need like one hour when nobody is going to disturb you – something possible only on the weekends.

I guess, perhaps, there is no universal definition of "real chess".  I suppose a three hour time control OTB "tournament" game would be the most defensible definition of "real chess" but I doubt I will ever play such a game.  Up until this moment, I had considered an even time control as necessary to be "real chess".  And I would still say that an even time control is necessary for a true measure of skill.  A short time control would measure a different skill than a long time control.

So what is "real chess" to me.  I guess a friendly OTB game with no clock that takes 30 to 60 minutes to play based on a friendly unspoken understanding not to use an inordinate length of time.  Which is usually not a problem since neither I nor the people I play with have the analytic skill necessary to analyze a move form more than a few minutes and most analysis takes less than a minute.

I think real chess is looking at your opponent over a chess board and playing whatever rules the two of you agreed on. It doesnt matter if its a tournment, or your playing at home, like me against my grandfather, or playing for my school, against another school. The main thing is to have a person in front of you. I play live chess here and its a load of fun, but heck thats just what it is fun. Its better than playing against the computer, and its neat to meet people from all over the world, instead of just playing all the dorky kids from my school. Anyway I think whatever rocks your world in your style of play  is totally awesome. 

Anyway im sure that made no sense at all, but thats the thoughts that  roles around under all those blond curls. 

Cheers, Kelly 

Kellytime - that makes perfect sense.  i agree completely.  Well said!

Another characteristic of "real chess" for me is playing one game at a time.  Chess games have a rhythm for me.  I try to do as much of my analysis as I can during my opponents turn and if I can correctly anticipate his move, I can make my move immediately keeping him off balance.  Even without a clock, there is an element of pressure if you can play fast enough to prevent your opponent from resting.  A surprise move has an impact on the rhythm of the game.  Turn-based games are more like a series of chess problems than a real chess game for me.

Still I enjoy turn-based games and they fit my lifestyle better than Live internet games or OTB games.

I prefer live games to turn-based games to get an accurate rating of my skill. When playing turn-based games I tend to avoid using tools such as the opening book and the game explorer, but I think this puts me at a disadvantage against other people who may make use of these tools. I'm considering using them but it seems a bit "cheaty".

Live games you can't really sit and do that, and with no analysis board you have to be able to follow your plans in your own mind instead, which is surely better to develop that part of your chess.

Yes, use of the analysis board, opening books and game explorer seems a bit "cheaty" to me too.  However, it really depends on how you look at it. 

If you want to measure your "true" chess ability, then OTB is the only real test and live chess is the closest alternative since they force you to depend exclusively on your ability.

However, if you want to deepen your understanding of chess by using these aids to help you understand the game at a higher level, then turn-based chess is valuable.  And, both players have the ability to use these resources if they wish.  It is kind of like taking an open book test.

That said, I believe that too much turn-based chess aided by these resources is damaging to chess ability.  Turn-based chess must be a supplement to more "real" chess experiences like live chess or OTB, otherwise, only a portion of chess ability will be developed.

Of course, if you do not care about developing the ability to play "real" chess and just wish to enjoy turn-based chess, then true chess ability or anybody's definition of "real" chess is irrelevant.

For me, even though I do not play much OTB, that is nonetheless, the skill I wish to develop.  Perhaps when my kids are grown and off to college, I will have time to spend at the local chess clubs and play more OTB.

I look at turn-based chess as "trainer wheels" chess.  I would (and have) get wiped off the board in OTB or live chess.  I'm just a casual player who is trying to get better and for me turn-based is perfect.   Sure I'm a little lazy and shouldn't have to rely on learning my openings as I play, but that's where my chess is at the moment.  Do I hope to get good enough to play at the local chess club?  Of course; that is my goal.  As an intermediate goal, do I hope to play more live chess?  Sure, but right now I need those "training wheels" to help me learn how to play chess.  Do I expect an awkward and difficult transition to real chess someday?  Yes, but I do think the experience will be less diificult and awkward than it would have been if I hadn't prepared myself with "training wheels" chess.  And actually even playing turn-based chess is a big jump for me since most of the last year I've spent doing the tactics trainer (over 14,000 problems) and Chess Mentor (over 60% of the courses completed).  Sure you can disagree with my strategy for chess improvement, but at least I have a plan.

A reasonable plan and any plan is better than no plan.  Everybody has to customize their approach to their personal learning style.  I also like the term "training-wheel" chess for turn-based chess - that is a good way to think of it.

However, if your objective is truly to play live and OTB chess in the future, then at least a little live chess now will greatly facilitate the transition later.  Using what you are learning through turn-based chess, tactics training and chess mentor in live or OTB chess is necessary in my opinion to cement it.  In the absence of live or OTB chess, you should at least choose your move first without using the aids available in turn-based chess and then verify it using training wheels.

At the moment, I am playing mostly turn-based online chess.  I have 13 games going, which is a lot for me.  I have had close to 40 going at once in the past.  That is way too many for me, although I have seen others who play hundreds of games at once.  I plan to finish my turn-based games and tournaments and then focus on live games for a while.  Maybe keeping a few online games going with some of my friends.

Anyway, there is a great variety of chess experiences available and each of us must find the experience we enjoy the most.

Very good observation, I struggle with this as well. Atm all my turnbased games show "my move", and when going there now, it will sure be like "puzzle-solving-time".

One unique characteristic of a string of "puzzle solving" moves in a series of turn-based games is that there is no certainty that there is a puzzle like tactic available.  In tactic training, it is often possible to guess the move because you know there is something there so if there is only one provocative move, it is probably right.  In a real game, of course, there is no certainty that a provocative move is good.  It requires a different skill set to choose among aggressive attacking or tactical moves and quiet developing and strategic moves.

Turn-based chess is definitely beneficial to developing real chess skill, but it has its dangers.

However, one of the good things with turnbased situations appearing like puzzles is that I actually make an effort to look for tactics. Of course, even if it "smells like tactics", often nothing's really working and I have spent quite some time for naught. But then again, "for naught" is probably not correct, as I have at least been training to calculate stuff. Strategy is a problem for when I come back to a turnbased game, I often have forgotten about any plans I may have had before. I found that the notepad helps quite a bit with this, though.    

What are turn-based games?

That's just another name for Daily chess: