Correspondence Tournament

@Algernon12 said in #4:
> You can cheat in Classical. So what? That's not a valid reason for not having correspondence tournaments. Will there be players who cheat? Probably. Again, so what?
What do you mean, so what? if they are cheating, it wouldnt be fair play and you would lose to somebody who is cheating!

You guys have no idea that cheat detection in correspondence is near impossible. You don't have any evidence from move times.

@crazyduck8879 said in #11:
> What do you mean, so what? if they are cheating, it wouldnt be fair play and you would lose to somebody who is cheating!

You seem to have missed the context of what I wrote which is that concerns about cheating is not a valid reason for not having correspondence tournaments. The world isn't going to end if some choose win by cheating. It's just an online chess tournament. All things considered, that's not a very high motivation to cheat. And even if they do, so what?

@edot12345 said in #10:
> correspondence is not that popular, so it would be hard to get enough players in a correspondence tournament

Have you considered that some may have chosen to play correspondence chess on other sites BECAUSE there aren't any correspondence tournaments?

"Build it and [they] will come".

@Algernon12 said in #13:
> You seem to have missed the context of what I wrote which is that concerns about cheating is not a valid reason for not having correspondence tournaments. The world isn't going to end if some choose win by cheating. It's just an online chess tournament. All things considered, that's not a very high motivation to cheat. And even if they do, so what?
You raise a valid point. However, if the tournaments are rated, they will accumulate very high rating quickly.

@crazyduck8879 said in #15:
> You raise a valid point. However, if the tournaments are rated, they will accumulate very high rating quickly.

Not sure what you have in mind here. Ratings accumulate faster in tournament games, than non-tournament games? Why would that be the case? Even if they do, those who choose to cheat to increase their rating, will do so tournaments or no tournaments.

@GreenPhoneBlue said in #1:
> I think that Lichess should add Correspondence Tournaments. Because it gives me more experience in games
and it should be called cheaters correspondence tournament

@edot12345 said in #10:
> correspondence is not that popular, so it would be hard to get enough players in a correspondence tournament

Maybe it would be more popular with tournaments. Also variant correspondence games should be rated again. Why let cheaters ruin things for the rest of us?

@Cedur216 said in #12:
> You guys have no idea that cheat detection in correspondence is near impossible. You don't have any evidence from move times.

If a cheater can't be distinguished from a legitimate player, how is there a problem? Does anyone who would actually participate in a correspondence tournament care about that?

So you think we can host tournaments as cheating playgrounds? No thx ... go to chess.com if you really want that.

Also variant correspondence is unrated because it cannot interfere with the rating gained from normal time controls