Why is Correspondence Chess not taken seriously on Lichess?

@Sarg0n I meant correspondence without ANY sort of engine support. What do you think about that? Will it be helpful to become better chess players? I use my ChessBase database for the opening and after that, I think and play on my own. Ok, if it is some variation of KID then the opening lasts until about 20-25 moves. Other than KID, ChessBase helps me until move 15-20.

It's a waste of time using the engines to make our moves. I want to improve, not the engine.

@Ellis_McPickles I want to ask you the same question too. What are your thoughts about playing correspondence chess without ANY sort of engine support? Usage of opening books and databases is allowed just like chess.com and Lichess. I felt that my openings knowledge became better after playing correspondence there. I don't want to use engines because that robs me MY JOY of chess. I want to have fun while getting better.

@PhayaNaga I agree with you. But I don't play tournaments as they take a long time to get over.

@raffarraffa Hola! Thank you for your effort :) 180 minutes is too long for anybody to sit in front of their laptop/computer to play a game. Even OTBs have 90 min+30 sec increment. I was speaking with respect to correspondence chess.

Correspondence is simply too slow for most people.

is correspondence chess simply daily chess with a 3 to 7 day time to make a move? i'm a fan of that. you can play several games at once... for me best is a theme based tournament, such as such and such opening, such and such variation. i think they're neat learning devices. i use printed matter, not engines, though.

i'm 63, took up chess again when i was 58. so i ACTUALLY played correspondence chess a little when i was young.... ah,... life was so much simpler then..........

@doublebanzai Life was actually far more complicated back then! You had to actually track all your games on sheets of paper and rebuild the positions on your board, send off a letter, keep track of time, etc etc. Server based correspondence is far simpler.

@gambitattax That's how I play correspondence now. I only used the computer when I was playing ICCF tournaments.

It's funny how people are about using chess engines in correspondence chess. I've had many people tell me they won't play CC because players "cheat" with chess engines. Myself, I don't care. If the other guy is using an engine to check or find his moves, how does that hurt me? What, I might have to up my game?

CC is good if you want to play your games without the pressure of the tournament room. It's great to be able to look up moves when you're uncertain about how to play a line. And think about a move for a while before deciding if it's right. I've not found it particularly useful as a venue for learning openings.

I played postal chess in the 90s for a number of years. One of the real attractions was communicating with players all over the country and world. Most times, we'd write little notes on our cards. By the end of a match, we'd all know a bit about each other. That's no longer the case, it seems. At least, with server-based games. Make a move, click the send button. Too bad.

@Ellis_McPickles
i actually don't recall the particulars. this would've been in the late 60's.... i wish i had some of the postcards, although there was nothing particularly special about them. my brother in law told me about some little cards with complete sets on them --- it sounded like people sent the same card back and forth... i'm sure i didn't play many games at the same time back then. with servers, it's easy to play quite a few games concurrently.

i looked at the iccf rules, briefly, using the search function. almost no mention of engines or computers that i saw... it sounds like computer analysis is allowed? i'm kind of astounded, although when i play 'correspondence' chess on chess.com, i assume they're not... well, i certainly haven't run into it, unless they use a computer just in certain parts of the game...

@doublebanzai Computer assistance is allowed on ICCF. As I understand it they have accepted that it is impossible to police and so they allow it. Quite a few people refuse to use it and their ratings remain very low. Anyone who maintains a rating over 1700 is definitely using a computer.

It's a different game. You're often analysing many lines of a given position to a depth of 40 ply, which is very time consuming when you're in a tournament with many games, and it's not just a matter of selecting the highest scoring move - the horizon effect is merciless and you have to analyse much deeper into the more promising lines to find small advantages somewhere far in the future, then backtrack along the line to ensure that your analysis is correct. It's a lot of work.

There's also no doubt that the top ranked ICCF players are highly accomplished chess masters who are able to use the software to full effect in top level games. How they play has nothing to do with how I was playing, even though I put in lots of work in my games.

For me personally it was fascinating at first, but eventually I decided I could spend my time better than running through lines and lines of analysis on a computer screen. So now I play correspondence here with just my limited chess ability and enjoy it a lot more.

Another reason I abandoned ICCF was that there is no satisfaction in beating people who, for whatever reason, refuse to use computers, and if a tournament has a lot of people playing that way, it makes the result meaningless. The contest is really only between the computer users.

@Ellis_McPickles TY for explanation...........the iccf does NOT sound appealing. i have no interest in becoming a, for lack of a better word, nerd on various chess computer engines...... i feel guilty just using printed material, and i assumed some people did not. this is on chess.com. i THOUGHT they didn't allow computers for their version of correspondence chess. i could be wrong, but i hadn't experienced any engines used against me.

@doublebanzai It all depends on where you play.

For Lichess, Chess.com, and Chess World (online servers), and USCF (by post) the rules state that you may use opening references and databases, but never an engine, tablebase or the assistance of another player. As you know, correspondence chess is more about research and planning to construct a favorable opening position than memorization of the openings. Since a player who understands their position tends to score better than one who just follows their reference into uncharted waters, any advantage would be the result of one's ability to convert and positional awareness, not necessarily access to resources.

ICCF does allow the use of engines. They will let you know this upon joining and you may choose to cancel your request for an account if this doesn't suit you. My experiment went something like this. I signed up for ICCF via their website. I was contacted by a representative who asked me for my chess background for the purposes of putting me in the right tournament and then went into detail about their policy allowing computer assistance. The reasoning they gave was that there is no good methods for them to detect engine use. They mentioned that players in the US who wish to play without computer assistance as a rule may sign up with CCLA who has options both for online play through ICCF servers, e-mail, and by post, or with USCF by post. I responded that I would not be interested in playing in ICCF tournaments as playing against strong engines is discouraging if they are responsible for too many of the moves. I'd actually love to compete in human-assisted engine correspondence, but I would never want to step into a minefield where some players aren't using engines and most if not all players don't have access to the same computing resources. I think my server against an average desktop may be about as unfair as an engine against a strong human.

I still think that detection methods are at the point where it is possible to enforce a no-computer rule almost as well as in a 120 minute game. There's a certain level of diminishing returns and futility in human planning as well as style cues regardless of move strength that make engine use fairly obvious, especially in correspondence where engine users know they will need to utilize it more to win. I've seen people banned on Chess.com for correspondence cheating with as little as 15 games and they are confident enough in their detection to have a visible leaderboard for it. Then again, their methods involve very expensive proprietary software running on very expensive hardware that has well paid professional human analysts. It's hardly fair to compare a commercial service to a free one where most of the work is done on a volunteer basis.

In closing, I think that if we want a thriving correspondence community on Lichess, we (the Lichess community) will have to foster it ourselves. I don't think that the staff will be the ones to push for it. It would probably start with making a team and recruiting people who are willing and qualified to verify compliance with the rules. That way cheaters could be removed much more quickly.

A Team with folks that truly are looking to improve and dive deep on positions sounds wonderful :) That would greatly impact my chess for the positive.

Good idea. Similar to 45+45 or other slow time control groups and teams, it seems to me.