58

It is not a question of ethics, but more about being courteous. Chess is a game where it is impossible to separate the joy of the game from the competitiveness/ego aspect so by declaring a forced win in N moves, you are effectively asking your opponent to resign immediately even though he hasn't seen the forced win yet owing to his lesser faculties/skill ...


33

Chess.com's site rules have the following to say: You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. [...] So it boils down to ...


31

The majority of the users find that insulting. Is it really insulting to [...] I can answer the question based on this excerpt alone. The answer is yes.


15

I would say this is not only insulting but unethical. Chess is a game that is intended to be a test of thought and concentration. It is unfair for a player to disrupt his opponents thought processes by drawing attention to any particular line of play as it may distract him from pursuing his intended strategy. Now you may think that the play is forced from ...


12

I guess I've never seen this behavior myself, but while I was reading the question I remembered that, many years ago, when I still read chess books (you know, the ones printed on paper), I read more than once something like "and (put the name of a famous ancient player here) announced mate in 5". Actually, if you google for "announce mate chess", it seems it ...


12

It's not like they're going to resign just because someone tells them there's a forced mate. They will try to either: A) Prove you wrong. or B) Know there's a forced mate, but play on just to irritate you.


12

According to friends who play correspondence chess they report the following benefits: Variety - you play lots of games all at the same time. Although you might not match Claude Bloodgood, who allegedly had hundreds of games in play at the same time when his postage costs were paid for by the US taxpayer because he was on death row, you will play all your ...


12

Your question is a bit paradox: analyzing is the whole point of correspondence chess (and since strong engines exist, it is sort of a zombie). It is very unfortunate (and not your fault) that Lichess called it that way in the first place: e.g. ICCF explicitely allows engines. Better would be calling it "very long time chess". Consequently, you may ...


10

I don't know why anyone should be offended by this. We are talking about correspondence chess here, even if you play it using a web server instead of through the postal service! The rules of correspondence chess (at least the USCF's) allow players to send "conditional moves" to save time: Conditional or if moves: An attempt to save time and postage by ...


10

I don't think that this is very polite nor common. If they are playing so poorly that they don't see the checkmate coming, telling this isn't very helpful for them. They still don't know how to counteract against moves that you are planning to do, so they only become more stressed and probably angry with you, too. Because it's looking like sneering at them - ...


10

If you make a checkmating move before your flag falls, but then your flag falls before you press the clock, you win. The relevant FIDE rules (emphasis mine) are: 5.1.a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 ...


9

I must disagree completely with the above answer. In the correspondence tournaments that I have participated in using a computer was considered cheating and if you were the tournament winner you had to do an analysis of one of your winning games, chosen by the tournament directors, to prove that you knew what you were talking about. Second the computers ...


9

Whether or not playing correspondence chess will help you to improve depends a lot on how you play. If you move after a quick look at the position and use it more like a Blitz game with the possibility of pausing, then I do not think you will improve much. If on the other hand, you use it to study the relevant openings, pawn structures, endgames, etc. then ...


9

Frankly, the biggest con is that today's correspondence game has turned into computer vs. computer contests. So yes, you learn how to use the computer well, but you may as well play your own computer daily since there is very little difference.


8

According to the official rules of the International Correspondence Chess Federation, you are allowed and encouraged to. It is regarded as learning an opening. Of course, there are different rules for some sites, but most sites follow the ICCF rules.


8

Yes (actually, hell yes). World class correspondence chess is very close to the infamous "draw death" of chess. If you thought 70-80% draw rate among the world elite at classical chess was bad, check out what it's like at world correspondence chess championship level: 9 decisive games out of 136 played, or about 95% draws. World class ...


8

As others have noted, in international correspondence play, conducted under the auspices of ICCF, computers are allowed. Correspondence chess has been an interesting battleground for this debate because it has been stated above, the primary strength of the computer is brute force calculation and speed. When Botvinnik was first attempting to design a chess ...


8

In its FAQ, lichess explicitly states their rules for what they call "correspondence chess": Is correspondence different from normal chess? On Lichess, the main difference in rules for correspondence chess is that an opening book is allowed. The use of engines is still prohibited and will result in being flagged for engine assistance. Although ...


7

In competitive correspondence chess everybody uses the strongest computer they can get, but there are still consistent differences in strength between different players. Computers are strong, but they're nowhere near perfect. They're extremely good in positions where calculation is the primary factor but not that good in endgames and positional play. Good ...


7

We can compile some "statistics" from the FICS games database. It doesn't have correspondence games, but it has a range of time controls and a range of ratings, so we can extrapolate a little bit. I'm putting "statistics" in quotes because this is low quality data (nothing against FICS, but online ratings aren't always the most reliable) and very sketchy ...


7

In chess we have to find the best move to play. In order to achieve this, we calculate several moves ahead. By using a computer 'only for sparring' you're effectively limiting the depth of your search tree by half - namely the opponent's moves. This is not like starting the 100m sprint at the 50m line and asking if it's ethical, because the number of ...


7

Obviously, as long as they are permitted within the rules of the organization, here is how I would use a computer. First, realize that different programs are better at different things, and I will divide them into two categories. I heard GMs Peter Svidler and Jan Gustafsson discuss this during the Firouzja-Carlsen game just yesterday. The first program is ...


7

There is no doubt that this position is currently equal, and should end in a draw, but white has two pluses that are might make it worth playing on, at least for a while. First, there e5 square, and the Nf3 can outpost there and possibly create some discomfort for black. Black does not have a similarly strong square for the Nf6. Note that if black ever ...


6

A standard structure for a chess training program is broken down as follows: Use a 4-day cycle. Divide each day's chess time into 4 time units (the total of whatever time you can afford each day). Activities include: - Study (S) - Solve (V) - Play (PL) Areas of the Game include: - (O) Openings - (T) Tactics - (G) Strategy - (E) Endings So, a time unit ...


6

This question seems to have been answered by TD in ChessPub Forum. I post the answer below: [fen ""] [Date "1996"] [Round "?"] [White "De Groot, Adrianus Dingeman"] [Black "Simmelink, Joop Theo"] [Source "ChessBase"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 Ne7 5. h4 Neg8 6. a3 a6 7. Nf3 Ng4 8. Ng5 f5 9. Qc2 Bc5 10. e3 Ne7 11. Be2 Nf6 12. b4 Ba7 13. Bb2 h6 14. ...


6

Correspondence chess will do more to improve the quality of your game. That is, your moves will be a lot more thoughtful and deliberate, and so will your opponent's. When you lose, it will probably be due to a subtle mistake beyond your ordinary comprehension (have better players point out where and why you lost). That said, "fast" games may do more to ...


6

Yes. ICCF: Says nothing about it, or assistance of any kind, and you can even use computers legally. Here are their rules. USCF: "3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players." Here are their rules. With regards to the ICCF rules, my guess is that they just decided it was too hard to police computer used, so they just allow it. ...


5

The answer is, "Yes." See this article: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12677/763 Does your phone application have this capability? Probably no... yes! So don't do it!


5

On chess.com, use of books and game databases is allowed. Use of engines and tablebases is not. Your book is either a book or a game database and therefore fine. There are also sites that don't allow any outside help (no books, no databases), and on the other hand the ICCF (the offiical FIDE-affiliated Correspondence Federation that is also completely ...


5

Correspondence chess is still alive and well. Just as in the pre-engine days it is the branch of chess which comes closest to chess "truth". Before the internet and strong chess engines correspondence players had days rather than minutes and seconds to consider their moves. They could use books with openings and analysis by the best players in the world. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible