Correspondence Bug • page 1/1 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

Is there a bug in correspondence? I can access the masters database and can use it against my opponent. Is this intentional or is this a bug?

IndianDefense

#2

That is intentional. It is customary in correspondence, even when played by snail mail or email, to allow opening books. The masters database is, essentially, a giant opening book, so it is permitted.

NM MrPushwood

#3

Of course, bear in mind it's only permitted because it was assumed that banning it would be pointless. ;) If you really want a pure Correspondence experience, play without any such aids.

mcgoves

#4

@MrPushwood said in #3:

it's only permitted because it was assumed that banning it would be pointless

I thought it's permitted because correspondence/postal chess players (in the pre-computer age) traditionally used books and such.

@MrPushwood said in #3: > it's only permitted because it was assumed that banning it would be pointless I thought it's permitted because correspondence/postal chess players (in the pre-computer age) traditionally used books and such.

Akbar2thegreat

#5

So genuine of you to ask!

NM MrPushwood

#6

@mcgoves Yes indeed. But why was that? Because if they "outlawed" it, everyone would just go ahead and do it anyway. ;) Something to think about whenever you hear people start talking about the Good Old Days in chess (when everyone was still decent and trustworthy).

Skittle-Head

#7

Yeah get through the opening... Then there's 'Middle game!' - :]

Brian-E

#8

There's another good reason for allowing the use of books and databases of openings and games in correspondence besides the two already mentioned (traditionally always done in the past, and inability to enforce their outlawing).

Suppose you have an ongoing game at, say, around move 12 in a highly theoretical line. If looking up opening theory was not allowed, you would not be able to study the line at all while in the opening through to early middlegame phase (and when precisely you would be released from that obligation not to study would not be clear).

That would be unreasonable. You can't expect serious players not to be able to study certain openings (also endgames) for weeks or months on end because they have a correspondence game which would benefit. They have other matches and tournaments to prepare for.

There's another good reason for allowing the use of books and databases of openings and games in correspondence besides the two already mentioned (traditionally always done in the past, and inability to enforce their outlawing). Suppose you have an ongoing game at, say, around move 12 in a highly theoretical line. If looking up opening theory was not allowed, you would not be able to study the line at all while in the opening through to early middlegame phase (and when precisely you would be released from that obligation not to study would not be clear). That would be unreasonable. You can't expect serious players not to be able to study certain openings (also endgames) for weeks or months on end because they have a correspondence game which would benefit. They have other matches and tournaments to prepare for.