I guess it all boils down to this: the only way you can sit down and play an UNAIDED game of chess is to do it personally. Whether you like it or not; whether it is acceptable or not; that is up for personal preference.
If anyone wants to go back to the original post, I said I had just discovered the "explore" button. I was not aware of it. It seems like a lot of the logic yall use is that both sides know the rules. I did not know and was surprised.
I may come to appreciate it one day, but it will never be more than my initial appreciation of this: I thought I was playing chess games as though I was sitting across from the table from my opponents.
wrote:
An honest game? Look through the forums and you'll find a fair amount of support from others who consider correspondence rules to be cheating even when those rules are clearly specified, understood, and followed by both players. Another word the anti-corresponders like to apply to themselves is "purists"-- in general they are quite impressed with their own high standards, and contemptuous of the chess ability, standards, and honesty/morality of those who dare to enjoy the contemplative nature of correspondence chess.
Is it "too much to ask for"? If you're referring to correspondence chess, then yes, it would be too much for you to ask that rules that have been in place for more than a century be set aside because you're on some holier-than-thou kick and think that devotees of correspondence chess are dishonest. If you don't like it, don't play it. Simple as that. The live chess games conform to standard OTB rules, so both options are available to their fans. A lot of people enjoy both the live and correspondence forms, each for what it offers.
Well Said!!
No less than Nigel Davies has stated that some correspondence play is good for our OTB play. Because in correspondence you are encouraged to study the opening etc. etc.
I love them both!!