lichess.org
Donate

Correspondence chess - why is it not supported on Lichess?

#1
I don't understand why Lichess is so unattractive for correspondence chess players?!
There is no way that you can take part in correspondence chess tournaments. These are offered within individual clubs, but the results are either managed by dedicated members on external sites or the games are laboriously checked for results and counted manually.
Here in the forum the topic has already been discussed that there should be the possibility of round robin tournaments (lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/idea-create-tournaments-all-against-all). Especially in correspondence chess it is a very attractive form of tournament, as all games are played simultaneously.
The possibility of team matches has also been discussed (lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/team-matches-in-live-and-correspondence-chess). After all, this is the classic form of play in OTB team games. It would open up the possibility for leagues, which have not been practically realisable so far because of the immense effort involved.
Correspondence chess can only be played here simply, there is not even a ranking list (lichess.org/player).
It would be nice if if possible someone responsible here could give a reason why correspondence chess is so little supported. I think speaking on behalf of all correspondence chess players, there is a great desire for various tournaments in this form of play.
Please don't misunderstand me! Lichess is quite a wonderful place to play chess! But for me as a correspondence chess player it is not very attractive at the moment. Is there a chance for change...???
#2
Because it's out of style. Zoomers spawned the recent chess renaissance and most of them have no attention span at all. Hence the rise in popularity of blitz, bullet, etc. Nobody cares about good chess, they just want bloodsports matches basically. So as far as I can see there just isn't any big demand for it. On top of the surges in stalling out the clock and cheating people just want a game and getting it over with fast and not leaving time for cheating and if they stall it's over fast anyway.

So it's not particularly popular among zoomers and the god awful players and the way they act deincentivizes investing much time into a game. So it's less a Lichess issue and more just a general chess thing now. Correspondence just isn't as popular among people with stunted attention spans and concerns about other players being able to basically screw it all over at a moment's notice or out of spite.

It'd be nice, but I just don't see correspondence making a comeback like that.
#3
I am cnfused, by your complaint. There is a tab dedicated to correspondence chess and 5 games to choose from and you can create your own at anytime.

Not many people play it, but that’s not lichess fault, it is available. .
#5
@AAArmstark said in #4:
> Regarding the leaderboard, you can find official answers here:
>
> - www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/3zfrhq/comment/cyls61a/
> - github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/12703#issuecomment-1511780514
> - github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/8771#issuecomment-826984883
>
> I think this reason ("to avoid encouraging cheating") might also be related to your other questions.
@AAArmstark,
Thank you very much for the constructive and concrete answer. This answers my questions. It is probably true that Lichess is not suitable for correspondence chess players because of a fundamental decision.
Nevertheless, I would like to make a few remarks.
Correspondence chess already existed when there was no thought of computers. So it is the foundation on which chess has developed, where the players do not sit face to face at the board. For this reason alone, it would be very nice if there were correspondence chess tournaments here on Lichess.
As I understand it, the above-mentioned fundamental decision was made many years ago, mainly in order not to encourage cheating. I have a very personal opinion on this very difficult subject. I stopped playing correspondence chess when computers entered our lives. Precisely because I had no desire to play against a computer. Two years ago I started again. I didn't bother with the subject any more. From the point of view that whoever wants to cheat will do it anyway. But he also doesn't have that great feeling that comes when you've played a great game. This is independent of whether you let the engine play the whole game in extreme cases. Even if you only had help with one or two moves, it's no longer your own game. I am convinced that every correspondence chess player feels the same way.
And by the way, why do I emphasise that this fundamental decision was taken many years ago? The answer is that it was certainly correct many years ago. In the meantime, however, technology has advanced considerably. On Chess.com I read in an article that the vast majority of cheating by absolute numbers occurs in live games. And we certainly don't need to talk about examples of cheating even in OTB games here. If someone now says that I should play at Chess.com - NO!!!
I would like to emphasise that I do not want to complain. I just didn't get it. @AAArmstark was able to help me though. Thanks again for that.
My hope remains, however, that those responsible at Lichess will reconsider their decision at the time. I would be very happy about that!!!
#6
@hohes_cs said in #5:
> Correspondence chess already existed when there was no thought of computers. So it is the foundation on which chess has developed, where the players do not sit face to face at the board.

Well, I don't know about that. Generally it was engaged in by people who lived out in the sticks, and those who lived in cities far apart from each other. And remember (lest you think that cheating is a recent--and engine-engendered--phenomenon): the reason that everyone is allowed in Correspondence to move the pieces around on the board and consult opening and endgame books and so forth is because it was realized early on that no one would be able to prevent such things anyway (so they just decided to make all that part of the game).

That's also why--back in the days when they still had adjournments--everyone felt free to consult others and stay up all night analyzing positions.
#8
@AAArmstark said in #4:
> I think this reason ("to avoid encouraging cheating") might also be related to your other questions.

Oh that was the reason? That's rich.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.