I would imagine that just about everyone here has played in tournaments, but do any of you play correspondence chess? Especially via email. I would like to obtain a rating, and email correspondence tournaments would probably be the best way for me to go, but I also have some reservations about it. On another forum, before the thread degenerated into troll posts, there was some discussion about email chess and players’ use of computer programs to help them.
Using a computer program seems like it would be completely against the spirit of playing chess via email, and I know that it is forbidden according to the email rules I’ve read here, but does anyone actually follow those rules? I would never use a program to help, but it would be pointless for me to pay money to play in an email tournament if I’m the only one playing fairly.
What has your experience with email chess been like?
E-mail chess can vary from site to site. As with any chess on the internet there will always be questions about computer aid in games, which is wrong. I do not know about USCF online/e-mail postal chess, but there are regular sites that do offer what is really online postal chess. Chess.com has the turn-by-turn games with set time controls of when a move must be made [i.e. 1 move every 5 days] or else the player loses. Chessworld.net has games from 1 move every 2 days up to 1 move every 30 days. One thing to remember is that all of these sites have some for of a vacation hold for a game. So, if you are going on vacation for a week [say to the US Open] and don’t want to worry about your online game(s) a vacation hold can be put on a game.
I don’t believe I have actually encountered anyone using a computer in an online game that I played. I have been [incorrectly] accused of using a computer in an online blitz game when quickly reeling off two dozen moves in an opening I have played for over 20 years. Sorry, but no advice in regards to abusive opponents.
Do you want to get a US Chess CC rating or an ICCF rating? ICCF allows engines. Email chess is on the way out, and it is more common to use dedicated servers. You might wish to try a free two game (unrated) match.
And many are frustrated by the lack of honesty. Many have ceased playing correspondence because of that or now play with ICCF because computers are not banned there. Correspondence chess in the traditional sense from before computers is dead as the proverbial door nail.
Oddly enough I didn’t find that link on the main uschess.org website; I got to it by typing “USCF Correspondence chess” to a search engine.
I could be mistaken, because I haven’t played USCF correspondence lately, but I recall reading that USCF doesn’t allow computer assistance, whereas some other correspondence sites might allow it or even encourage it.
Notwithstanding it being “dead as a doornail”, this correspondence organization has plenty of participation, and you will occasionally see articles about it by the organizer, Alex Dunne, in Chess Life Online.
When I was more active in both postal and e-mail chess, there weren’t any engines worth using, but I used to consider it fair game to consult opening books and articles, which of course you’re not allowed to do during an over-the-board chess game. In fact, even recording your analysis with pencil and paper (or in a file on a computer) is not allowed during an over-the-board chess game, but I think that lots of correspondence players do it (although I don’t remember doing it myself).
When you see downer, complainer, messages such as this, you may wish to consider the historical reality and the qualifications of the person making the comments.
Computer databases and analysis became pragmatically useable and impactful upon correspondence chess during the late 1990’s. Of course, correspondence chess was played for many decades/centuries prior to that. Computer databases are considered “books” and are legitimate to use generally by most groups. The question about computer use comes in when one has active analytical use, either by a machine or person. Some groups (such as ICCF) allow that, some do not. I believe that ICCF’s allowance wasn’t based only upon the difficulty of enforcement, but also upon the fact that strong players run chess engines for extended periods to help build their database (thereby turning the active analysis into static analysis.) Thus, the prohibition made limited sense.
The “advice” you see above, in my opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt. Centaurs (a person working in conjunction with an active computer analysis) is generally more impactful than a computer program alone, since the combination has a sense of judgement and intuition which a computer does not otherwise posses.
According to the person’s MSA webpage, they’ve played OTB chess since 2007 - not far back enough to have any meaningful historical perspective on the history of correspondence chess or how it used to be. Further, the person is rated under 1000 OTB with an interesting correspondence rating history (view the graph here: uschess.org/datapage/ratings … d=13592564) - so my suggestion would be to obtain more than one opinion on the current meaning and value of correspondence chess.
I believe there was one tournament that did allow engine assistance. Please see Mr. Bachler’s comments to see the differences in different types of computer use.
According to a friend of mine who has been an avid correspondence player for decades, you can expect that your opponent is using at least one and as many as five different engines to assist in games. Most popular are Fritz, Houdini, Deep Junior, Shredder, and Komodo. Run on fast desktop computers, these programs can provide validation for ideas and show differences in approaches. He refers to them as his “friends” when playing games. His use of engines is similar to the preparation many strong masters do before events. They also use multiple engines to compare and contrast potential lines. Which is the more human-like in playing is a difficult question to answer. Komodo and Houdini appear to be “play” games that are more understandable in human terms. The other engines sometimes come up with quirkier moves. There are also dozens of other engines developed by individuals who test them out on correspondence games and in computer competitions. When he gets stuck, I sometimes help him to choose or ignore given moves and plans. I am sure that he asks others to help him as well.
The use of databases like Chessbase or Chess Assistant, along with the engines, allows you to ferret out games in a given line to test out on the engines. If used alone, their use is more similar to merely using specialized opening books, ECO, or other textual material. If you are going to use databases, do not overlook using correspondence game databases. Many games in these databases often do not appear in the other databases that feature mostly OTB games.
If you want to play correspondence chess unarmed, good luck to you. GM Ulf Andersson has opined that with the combined skill of a GM and a computer engine along with database resources, he does not see how one can lose.
There you go yet again arguing not the issue(s), but at the person. You undoubtedly know how inaccurate otb ratings can be, and often are. This has been discussed in the forums quite recently. That part of your post is specious at best.
That said, the unfortunate reality in correspondence chess, indeed all unmoderated online chess, since the 1990s is that some players simply play whatever move the computer recommends. They will have an advantage over a player not doing the same. Anything resembling human only pre-chess engine correspondence chess simply can not be presumed to exist.
It is true that building up one’s database of games is quite like consulting books and old Chessinformants, with one significant exception. Computers are much more adept at searching positions in databases to find relevant games than is the human brain. Hence, the advantage goes to the player using database and computer searches over the human with books.
There is one place where some semblance of old-time correspondence chess may still be found–prison correspondence chess. Inmates in correctional institutions have not, until recently at least, had access to computers and chess engines to do analysis. Even that is changing with the existence of smartphones which inmates increasingly have access to. Brave new world.
Do you still get a rating even if you lose every game in a tournament?
I guess I’m just old. The idea of playing email correspondence chess with computer assistance just seems crazy to me. What’s the point? How can someone be proud of a win or a rating they didn’t earn with their own effort?
I’ve looked over the correspondence guidelines here at US Chess and I suppose I will go with a Walter Muir tournament. I appreciate it that all of you took the time to comment.
Yes, in general. The results are not the limiting factor.
I think this is because you’ve never tried it. There is a lot of effort involved in winning a CC game. If you only run your engine for a few minutes and play whatever move it suggests, you won’t do very well. Engines actually don’t understand chess very well, but they do very well at quick (i.e. any reasonable OTB time control) games. If you were willing to spend, say, sixty hours on a game you’d likely do better than the computers.
I play move in 2 days on chess.com and don’t consult an engine so there are honest players out there. I have only encountered a few players who I wondered about. I never have to wait long for an opponent so I question the statement that correspondence chess is dead as a door nail.
from tmag’s post… “If you want to play correspondence chess unarmed, good luck to you. GM Ulf Andersson has opined that with the combined skill of a GM and a computer engine along with database resources, he does not see how one can lose.”
which is why a huge percentage of games ARE drawn at the highest levels.
i play iccf but don’t use a computer. as my results obviously indicate. i do enjoy trying new openings and think it is excellent prep for OTB play. as tmag mentioned in another post, to paraphrase, “it’s about finding the truth in a position”.