Talk:Correspondence chess

World Champions

Can we please give a unique meaning to the term "World Champion"? There is only one international chess federation, that is ICCF, so I don't see why we have FICGS so called world champions in this page. FICGS is a webserver, FICGS world champions are n. 931, 282 and 60 (Eros Riccio, clearly the stronger FICGS chess player), in the world ranking. None of them was ever able to qualify for a ICCF world championship final (probably Eros Riccio will be able to do so in the future). FICGS history started some years ago thanks to the effort of a webmaster, FICGS championship is probably managed by the webmaster alone. ICCF was founded in 1951 as a new appearance of the ICCA (International Correspondence Chess Association), which was founded in 1945, as successor of the IFSB (Internationaler Fernschachbund), founded in 1928. All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised by FIDE. Mauropetrolo (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing FICGS. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed world champions list since I've created "World Correspondence Chess Championship" and I've copied there the same list. I've also redirected "World Correspondence Chess Champion" to the new page. Mauropetrolo (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that when I undid your removal. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to add to "ICCF World Champions" list years when tournament took place, e.g.: 2002-2004.

I agree, but unfortauntely don't have such dates to hand. If anybody does, that would be great. The dates we have right now seem to be a mix of start dates and end dates, which isn't very useful. --Camembert 15:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ICCF now has full tournament tables and dates for each of the championship finals on their website (men, women), so I've updated our article to reflect the info there. --Camembert 15:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

annoying meta-discussion right on the page

I got confused, can anyone clean it up? Someone with a grudge against "engines" made it really confusing.

links

Angelfire comparison -- these servers are old, minor and irrelevant;
FICGS -- one-month old chess server;
CorrespondenceChess.com -- nothing here;
eChess.org -- not a server and of no particular use;
itsyourturn.com -- not a server...;
chessontheweb.com -- there are 300 users on this site, and 3/4th of them are clones.

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 07:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some data in this article are quite old. Now correspondence chess is generally daily chess. I have already added list of the most popular chess platforms for correspondence chess (or if somebody prefer daily chess). (2023) PlayChessBetter (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on The Oxford Companion to Chess entry on correspondence chess

Tim Harding wrote an interesting column examining some details in The Oxford Companion to Chess entry on correspondence chess. I'm not very knowledgeable about correspondence chess and don't have time to incorporate anything from his column into this article right now, but I'm recording it here in case someone can make use of it: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz95.pdf. Quale 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

'computer assistance' is a pretty strange section

I came to this article because I recently started playing correspondence chess, and was hoping to find something insightful in the article about the problem of cheating in correspondence chess (by using a chess program).

At first I thought the section on 'computer assistance' might help, but in reality it is pretty outdated (2006 is a long time in computer science), and contains a pretty strong and (I should say) sort of unlikely claim, unless I'm missing the point of the editor that wrote it: that the strongest available chess programs can be beaten by moderately strong club players.

I'm pretty sure that the consensus is that, apart from a very small number of humans (i.e. top level grandmasters), chess engines beat almost every human player in a one-on-one match. Yet it looks like the section in this article claims otherwise.

My proposal for a rewrite: first, I would really like to get rid of this whole outdated 'hydra' information (the engine isn't even developed anymore. rybka is generally considered the strongest engine right now). Second, get rid of the whole discussion about how strong computers play against humans, which I believe to be a tangential point for this article (the question about the relative strength of human vs. PC chess belongs into another article, probably 'computer chess'). Finally, I'd like find some material on how prevalent or problematic cheating is in correspondence chess. Because I believe /that/ would be highly relevant for this article: for example, any survey that explores how many players on correspondence chess servers use a chess engine, or if there are algorithmic ways of discovering if a player uses assistance (I'm not an expert in chess engine design, but I can easily imagine that there should be some statistical analysis that, based on a players moves, can say with some certainty if he/she is using an engine.) Not sure how much I can find on that subject, so if you can link to something relevant I'd be grateful. Thanks for your input.

Minvogt (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to International Correspondence Chess Federation, using a computer engine while playing correspondence chess is allowed, so that is not cheating. Having some experience in computer science, in online chess and in correspondence chess, I do believe there is no way to find out whether a correspondence chess player is using a chess engine. ...and there is no way to find out whether a female player is getting any help by her GM husband while playing for the female championship (this is not allowed by ICCF).

Mauropetrolo (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 2023 you cannot find IM or GM who is ready to play correspondence chess with engines support. Elite GMs have no chances against basic chess programs on their mobiles. PlayChessBetter (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unclear

The article says "match between correspondence chess grandmaster Arno Nickel and six computer programs on the now defunct Chessfriend server ended +1=3-2." Who won 1 and who won 2? I assume that Nickel won 2, but it isn't clear. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

One of most interesting things about correspondence chess is its history and development, stretching back centuries and integral with the history of mail delivery itself, in addition to the famous people of the past who played it. I do not know anything about this though, so someone else should write it.

"Forced Move" Rules?

I thought some versions of correspondence chess had a "forced move" rule, in which you could assume that the other player was forced to make a move under certain circumstances, and make the move for them, saving time.

For example, if you capture their knight with your bishop, it is "forced" that they regain the material lost by capturing your bishop, so you can assume that they will use a pawn or whatever seems most reasonable to capture your bishop, and you can send in two moves.

I once resigned a game when someone sent me this "forced move" in the mail. I told him "no moves are forced in chess, except getting out of check". 140.221.3.23 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to have only one legal move and not be in check. There is a forced move in the sense that it is the only legal move, and the term is also used when any other move would be much worse. There are "if moves", e.g. 21.NxB if 21... RxN then 22.Qe4" (excuse the mixing of notations). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In confirm what Bubba73 said, but I will also add that «If moves» appeared early and quite naturally in correspondence chess simply to save money on stamps or telegrams, and of course to save time on obviously forced variations. Often, especially during the opening, a serie of moves could be proposed, and it was up to the opponent to decide if he wanted to diverge at any point in the middle of the proposed variation (he wasn't forced to accept the full variation).

Perhaps that's was the intent of your opponent, or simply he could not imagine you playing anything else. In any case, you were never forced to accept any «forced» move or variation even if anything else is obviously wrong. Of course, if there is only one legal move, the only way to refuse the proposed move is by resigning. Also, Internet correspondence chess may put on more limitations, but you can't be forced to play any move.

I think that you were the victim of a simple misunderstanding. Maybe both players somehow misunderstood the rules, but that is still a kind of misunderstanding.

Linkspam

No external links to correspondence chess services should be added -- either inline or in the "External Links" section -- unless the service is a) very prominent and b) focuses mostly/entirely on correspondence chess. For example, linking to Chess.com is inappropriate because it is a general pay-to-play chess service, and not specifically about correspondence chess. Wikipedia is not the proper venue to advertise it. Likewise, some service on which one can play correspondence chess via instant messaging is not appropriate for linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.178.144 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Correspondence chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303010643/http://www.iccf.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=58; to http://www.iccf.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=58;

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing players section

Why should we have a section about players of correspondence chess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicachicaboomer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Correspondence chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenon of correspondence chess played over the internet

This article needs an update for the phenomenon of correspondence chess played over the internet, which I started to do. The fact that chess is played on the internet is not in dispute and has stood correctly stated in the article for at least 10 years. The term "Internet correspondence chess servers" has been in the article since at least 2007, although now abbreviated to "correspondence chess servers." Therefore, please do not make wholesale deletions from the article about internet-based chess (including the nature of the games and types of chess games being played).

Improvements by any editor to the article are welcome. But please discuss here before making large deletions of properly referenced material. You are also welcome to help by editing and supplementing existing material (rather than deleting) and adding reliable references and citations to statements that may appear to be dubious.LithiumFlash (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read & understand WP:UNDUE and WP:BRD and WP:POV and WP:PROMOTION. There is no obligation to okay with you on Talk before removing your gross additions. Your edits are like an invading species from Chess.com. --IHTS (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material I added had proper references and citations. Examples from chess.com are fine because it is by far the most popular chess-playing website. In fact it is 20 times more popular than the next most popular chess-playing website (below). It is also subject to peer-review, and is moderated by experts in the field of chess.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chess.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chessgames.com

—LithiumFlash (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types

There also existed telechess. It's somewhere between online chess and correspondence chess. It was played before the internet. Between 1977 and 1990 there were three olympiads of telechess. 213.149.61.19 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How computers changed the game

Game of correspondence chess was changed by computers. So today exists so called engine assisted chess, where computer program called chess engine is used while playing. One of the well known and free is Stockfish. Of course, it is important to know and understand the game to be able to efficiently direct engine analysis . Although there are competitions where computer help is forbidden, in practice that is difficult to enforce. 22:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Correspondence chess in the 3rd decade of the 20th century.

I have introduced some updates to the article, especially concerning sections related to chess engines and types of correspondence chess. Currently, correspondence chess is experiencing a renaissance thanks to modern chess platforms. The vast majority of both amateur and professional players exclusively participate in daily chess tournaments. Personally, I don't know anyone who still plays using email or traditional mail. Considering the growing popularity of daily chess on leading platforms, I believe this Wikipedia article is quite significant. I also attempted to create a separate article for daily chess, but it was suggested that I move this information to the correspondence chess article. PlayChessBetter (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]