So I only play correspondence, I rarely have time to sit and play live. And when I accept a game, I (if I remember) look at the person's ratings, and if they are much higher in correspondence than in blitz or classical, then I typically will not take the game because I see it as a sign of likely cheating. For instance, I am playing a game now with a player whose correspondence rating at the time the game started was 2200, while his blitz and classical ratings were about 1800 and 1900, respectively. To me, this is unrealistic, and almost certainly a sign that this player is cheating in correspondence chess. But I'd like to hear other people's opinions on it.
Your argument is strange. Blitz and lichess "classical", which is also blitz according to FIDE require other qualities like strong nerves, quick mouse moving. Correspondence requires patience and hard analysis work. I know several correspondence grandmasters, who are not so strong over the board. Especially elder players can be strong in correspondence but without the nerves to play blitz.
What is cheating in correspondence anyway? The international correspondence chess federation allows the use of engines as long as the player decides himself on his moves. At 3 days / move you cannot discern engine assistance or not. Most top correspondence players like for the world championship use 2 or 3 engines for help.
There is a world difference between say a 10 minute "classical " game and correspondence chess. A longer game suits some people better than a shorter game where it is often more about reaction than thinking.
As you get older your ability to think quickly in speed chess declines. I say this as an older player. Differences in rating do not surprise me at all.
I believe use of an engine in correspondence games is considered cheating on Lichess .
Not something I would do or expect my opponent to be doing.
I won't talk about the cheating part because you're talking about the kind of rating that I have, but you gave me an idea that I wanted to share with you.
Reading your first sentence, what struck me was that you play correspondence when you don't have time. I play correspondence when I DO have time.
Correspondence takes time, that's the whole point. When I play it, almost every move takes me several hours, often spread over several days of thinking and analysing.
I've only played a dozen games and most of my opponents played it as if it were blitz. But this is very frustrating. I play correspondence to try to play a good game but my opponent gives me a big edge sometimes very early in the opening and that's not what I expect for correspondence games. Frankly, along from the lack of time, it is one of the reason I don't play it as much as I would want to.
Anyway, it seems to me that there may be two kinds of correspondence players, those who want to take their time on each move and those who want to play it fast. And it is frustrating to both of us to face each other. This has been bothering me for a while.
So reading your first sentence I suddenly had an idea for a new kind of time control that we may call correspondence-blitz.
The idea would be to have two time controls at the same time. You would have a certain number of days to make your move as long as you haven't looked at what your opponent played, but once you saw his move, you would only have a few minutes to play.
For instance when your opponent move, instead of the move appearing on the board, you would have a message asking you if you want to see it or not yet.
What do you think ?
My opinion>
The OP is full of crap with yet another thread on correspondence cheating. The amount of time available for making moves has absolutely nothing to do with the choice to cheat. It simply is a matter of character. All stats indicate more players "cheat" at blitz than correspondence, which is a very small % of players.
My opinion> these accusations are coming from someone who has played 14 correspondence games in 4 months and is misinformed, making assumptions without any evidence.
A great many players have higher correspondence ratings. Just as many have a lower rating than their blitz/classical rating. It's about a skill set. Myself, I play classical, not blitz... too fast for me and my connection not the best. Love to play classical, but "panic" in time pressure = a great deal of losses. Always a few hundred points higher is my correspondence rating. The OP's claim this is almost certainly an indication players with my "rating" cheat, which I find uneducated and somewhat offensive.
How about this reverse logic.
A player has a blitz/classical rating a couple hundred points above his correspondence rating.
Well, obviously the more time to think, the better moves will be found. Therefore, these players must be cheating at blitz/classical if they play better at faster time controls!
The answer is simple. Each has it's own set of skills. For many it may be equal, others one higher or lower. There are many variables. An obvious one as pointed out is the age factor.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.