I find that simply playing more correspondence increases my rating, since people time out at lot and forget about games. That's why out of my 100 opponents currently (no, I'm not kidding) there are a few that have rapid or blitz ratings below 1000 and a correspondence rating above 1500. Seriously, why aren't there more correspondence players?
Well yeah the big reason is people get flagged.
People do not take correspondence seriously over here. Most lack the patience. For serious correspondence play ICCF.
@kertandidi
One problem with correspondence chess is cheating. This has been mentioned in the forums years ago. That is probably also the reason why correspondence chess is not shown at the leader boards of Lichess.
(Some for tactic puzzles by the way).
Cheating in correspondence chess is such an issue that the World correspondence chess society even allows to use chess engines assistance for their members.
Also, why is bullet so popular ? Because one can play many games in a short amount of time.
Correspondence chess takes time and patience.
A pity because I believe correspondence chess can be a great tool to improve your chess.
One problem with correspondence chess is cheating. This has been mentioned in the forums years ago. That is probably also the reason why correspondence chess is not shown at the leader boards of Lichess.
(Some for tactic puzzles by the way).
Cheating in correspondence chess is such an issue that the World correspondence chess society even allows to use chess engines assistance for their members.
Also, why is bullet so popular ? Because one can play many games in a short amount of time.
Correspondence chess takes time and patience.
A pity because I believe correspondence chess can be a great tool to improve your chess.
@kertandidi
I played a lot of correspondence chess on Chessworld and now play it on a different platform, but lost more points by timing out than gained points, I believe.
That said, this type of thing averages out if one plays enough games, simply as a function of the law of great numbers...
The real reason, of course, is because it provides a format to help curb impulsive play and develop proper thinking and decision making methods, rather than encourage purely intuitive and chaotic ones since the pressure associated to the "time component" of chess is almost completely evacuated, at least when not played between elite-players.
As for cheating, that also averages out and doesn't really affect honest players relative to one another as they are all equally and randomly subjected to it, I presume.
Only the cheater is really penalized as the behaviour is unsustainable and personal growth made far more difficult and improbable.
I personally just play it because of the convenience, though great players use it to deeply study positions and the game in general.
I have posted about this previously here: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/correspondence-chess-a-couple-of-questions#8
I played a lot of correspondence chess on Chessworld and now play it on a different platform, but lost more points by timing out than gained points, I believe.
That said, this type of thing averages out if one plays enough games, simply as a function of the law of great numbers...
The real reason, of course, is because it provides a format to help curb impulsive play and develop proper thinking and decision making methods, rather than encourage purely intuitive and chaotic ones since the pressure associated to the "time component" of chess is almost completely evacuated, at least when not played between elite-players.
As for cheating, that also averages out and doesn't really affect honest players relative to one another as they are all equally and randomly subjected to it, I presume.
Only the cheater is really penalized as the behaviour is unsustainable and personal growth made far more difficult and improbable.
I personally just play it because of the convenience, though great players use it to deeply study positions and the game in general.
I have posted about this previously here: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/correspondence-chess-a-couple-of-questions#8
I guess it also has something to do with the time out ratio. Just made a quick search through my correspondence games (usually 2-3 days move time):
Rated games: 149
Wins overall: 81
Wins by time out: 31
38% of my wins are due to opponent timeouts :/
Rated games: 149
Wins overall: 81
Wins by time out: 31
38% of my wins are due to opponent timeouts :/
@kertandidi
If @Widuk 's results (#6) are representative of the user-experience on Lichess for correspondence chess, one can only conclude that this is not at all a good platform for that format.
If @Widuk 's results (#6) are representative of the user-experience on Lichess for correspondence chess, one can only conclude that this is not at all a good platform for that format.
Kids play less than 5 minute games only.
its easier because of opening books, databases , engines and the amount of time you can set up positions and try different moves and decide which route is the best.. its really not practical for many players to have a game last a few days. schedules change , stuff comes up.. if you really need an exuberant amount of time to calculate then fine go ahead but in reality time management is a useful skill to develop , in otb tournaments you cant spend days, or hours on a given position so calculating faster and accurate is going to benefit you in the long term
Pretty much what #9 says. If you're "out thinking" the average opponent you'll inflate your rating over people who just want to sit down 10 minutes every day and play a move without deep thought.
I used to play correspondence over at chess.com. I made full use of opening books and the analysis board (though without computer assistance as it's not allowed). So when I first made the transition to blitz games I realized I was god damn awful at chess. I hadn't learnt to prioritize my thoughts. I hadn't learnt to picture moves ahead on a board without physically moving the pieces. I hadn't learnt time management of any sort.
I used to play correspondence over at chess.com. I made full use of opening books and the analysis board (though without computer assistance as it's not allowed). So when I first made the transition to blitz games I realized I was god damn awful at chess. I hadn't learnt to prioritize my thoughts. I hadn't learnt to picture moves ahead on a board without physically moving the pieces. I hadn't learnt time management of any sort.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.