Why isn't there a correspondence leaderboard?

The short answer is that the most legitimate ratings have the fastest time controls.

The question I have is, what is the point (fun) of correspondence chess? Wouldn't time be better spent studying games of GM's for a day? Where is NM MrP on this subject, they are conspicuous by their absence>?

It's understandable that the quality of correspondence games is top notch with few blunders and many draws however it's similar to chess before clocks where players could win by boring opponents and putting them to sleep with endurance. It's slow grinding games and rarely do we see an unexpected tactical strike. I'm no Claude Bloodgood, so it's not my cup of tea.

A reasonable person would understand there is no leaderboard in puzzles because it is just too tempting for many players to peek at the solution. Same with correspondence chess.

Thus, while most of these players are not cheating, a few bad apples spoil it for the rest.

A correspondence ranking has no value. Cheating is way to easy in correspondence chess. Outside of lichess, engine support is therefore even allowed in correspondence chess because you can't do anything against engine support in correspondence chess.

no not 80 games, you have to have 44 or less rating deviation to be in the leader board and no provisional rating.

ya maybe there is a leaderboard i'm not really sure about this one though

correspondence rankings is empty.

@AaRaMk said in #6:

It's there , but hidden
lichess.org/player/top/200/correspondence
i cant see anyone in the leaderboard lol