Why is it easier to have a higher correspondence rating • page 2/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

@Pluckerpluck Exactly! There is an abyss between correspondence and live games. But I'd say that taking long time to make a move is not "damn awful at chess". It's just lack of experience to play quickly. Faster doesn't mean better in chess.

rachel8

#12

I just started playing chess again in February after not having played since childhood, and I’m glad to play correspondence for the convenience, as Pixelated Parcel mentioned, and also for a relaxing challenge. Otherwise I likely wouldn’t have time to play. As others have mentioned, there probably aren’t more correspondence players because it takes patience. The covid shutdowns brought a huge influx of players online, mostly young players, and they tend not to want to wait for moves (though there are exceptions). Regarding cheating, I haven’t encountered any yet, or at least I’m blissfully unaware of any 😊

There’s a Correspondence League team that organizes tournaments and seems to be well run, for any who have interest -- https://lichess.org/team/correspondence-league

I love correspondence but if you’re a serious competitor, time management is definitely a good skill to develop. I may try to play synchronously as I have time. I did play rapid anonymously a few times and I had the mental poise of a deer caught in headlights.

I just started playing chess again in February after not having played since childhood, and I’m glad to play correspondence for the convenience, as Pixelated Parcel mentioned, and also for a relaxing challenge. Otherwise I likely wouldn’t have time to play. As others have mentioned, there probably aren’t more correspondence players because it takes patience. The covid shutdowns brought a huge influx of players online, mostly young players, and they tend not to want to wait for moves (though there are exceptions). Regarding cheating, I haven’t encountered any yet, or at least I’m blissfully unaware of any 😊 There’s a Correspondence League team that organizes tournaments and seems to be well run, for any who have interest -- https://lichess.org/team/correspondence-league I love correspondence but if you’re a serious competitor, time management is definitely a good skill to develop. I may try to play synchronously as I have time. I did play rapid anonymously a few times and I had the mental poise of a deer caught in headlights.

Vegemite_Fighter

#13

It is extremely difficult to maintain a rating of 2100 onward; players at that level start to play perfect games. Maybe not all the time. But at least some of the time. I find Correspondence Chess easy to fit in with my unusual timezone.

rachel8

#14

Wow, @Vegemite_Fighter, did you need to study to get to that level or were you already a strong player from when you were a youth? Or maybe a little of both?

Vegemite_Fighter

#15

@rachel8 Probably a combination of a few things. I am an experienced correspondence chess player; I used to play it in the 90's when you used old school envelopes and stamps! Second, I am coming back to chess after about 10 years; I used to play on sites like FICS and ICC in their 45 45 Team Leagues. I was coached a little bit. The best coaches in my opinion are good correspondence chess players such as the American master Bill Richards.

I didn't know what my level on Lichess would be. Some people think that correspondence chess on Lichess is a joke but there are some strong players here.

@rachel8 Probably a combination of a few things. I am an experienced correspondence chess player; I used to play it in the 90's when you used old school envelopes and stamps! Second, I am coming back to chess after about 10 years; I used to play on sites like FICS and ICC in their 45 45 Team Leagues. I was coached a little bit. The best coaches in my opinion are good correspondence chess players such as the American master Bill Richards. I didn't know what my level on Lichess would be. Some people think that correspondence chess on Lichess is a joke but there are some strong players here.