CORRESPONDENCE CHESS FORUM

Frequently we'll be offering a new topic for discussion as well as present comments received from earlier topics. We appreciate your comments and ideas relating to the USCF Correspondence Chess. I must insist that the tone of the comments be offered and presented in a professional manner. USCF will have sole discretion regarding comments not appropriate for posting. I see this area becoming an excellent opportunity for correspondence chess players to be heard and be a part of making USCF Correspondence Chess even better.

The new topic up for discussion is:

"What should happen with a correspondence chess game being played electronically when the player claims his server was down?"

Here are comments received from the "Reflection Time" control topic which will continue to be offered for on-going discussion.

Eric Sweet writes, "I play postal correspondence chess. I usually never come near using all the time allotted to me. The reason is, that I use the time the postcards are in transit to consider my move. Were I playing by email, I suspect I might very well run into trouble as there is very little, "in transit time". I've never actually played by email, but if I did, I would like to have enough time to fully consider my moves. After all, if I want to play fast, I'll play over-the-board."

Thomas J. Williams writes, "I would vote for keeping 10 moves/30 days. Perhaps there could be another kind of tournament w/perhaps 1 move/day, allowing much faster cc events via email. I suggest you offer a clearing house online at this website for members wishing to enter cc events. I know that you do this through CompuServe, but I think the process is unnecessarily cumbersome. For example, I would like to have a 2-game rated match again a player fairly close to my rating - I don't care who it is. I would also prefer to send you my $8.00 for this purpose via the Internet with my credit card. If you set up a secure system for this, like so many other sites have, I think it would make this quite easy. You could even have a web page with members who have paid, waiting for matches, and could then allow other members to browse through and pick opponents for matches themselves. I believe you would see quite an increase in CC if this was offered."

Tim Ginnett writes, "I have been playing email chess with some of the other email organizations for a couple of years and they have the same time controls as postal (10 moves/30 days). I would be against shortening the time controls as, due to the accelerated nature of the games, one gets less thinking time on the opponents move - that is you can't count on a week or so to ponder possible responses from your opponent. If anything, the time control could be lengthened to say, 10 moves/45 days which would promote a higher quality of play and games would still probably finish more quickly than in postal chess.

Tom Ashley commented, "This is pertaining to old fashioned correspondence chess via postcards via the post office. Occasionally, I have an opponent whose stated receipt dates are often several days after my send date. Over the entire game, the mean transit time of my replies (based on my send dates) might be 7 days or more, where with most players the mean transit time is just over 4 days for east coast opponents, (I live on the west coast). Occasionally the post office really does take several days to deliver a reply, but over the long haul if the mean transit time is unusually high it implies that the player is really receiving his replies before he/she says he is. This is not good, because it could well affect whether the game is resolved in the 2.5 years allowed--I play the Golden Knights."

more from Tom Ashley, "How can this form of cheating be controlled? If, over perhaps a year's time, a player believes his opponent is lying about his receipt dates, and has good documentation, he could send all this in to the CCD. If the CCD is convinced by the documentation, the opponent could be penalized reflection time days so that the total reflection time is what it would be if the mean transit time has been, say 5 days per reply. For the rest of the game a transit time of 5 days would be assumed for purposes of reflection time, regardless of the the opponent's stated receipt dates (maybe less than 5 days if the players don't live far apart). This type of cheating could be discussed in the rules, with emphasis on why it is so "uncool", and with appropriate actions to take if one feels his opponent is cheating in this way. Complicated, but this is unfortunately a common problem. Maybe email is the answer eventually."

Tom Ashley also notes, "I play correspondence chess in the Golden Knights, have for years. I thought the using e-mail instad of the U.S.P.S. appeals to me, many problems would be eliminated. However, because of the zero transit time perhaps the reflection time should be increased (maybe 40 or 50 days per 10 moves) to keep the pace similar to chess via US Mail. One could argue that it should be kept at 30 days per 10 moves to speed up the overall pace. If that were the case I would have to be involved in fewer games."

D. Osborne comments, "A 90 day limit should be imposed for the first 10 moves; 120 for the second 10 moves; and 150 for the third 10 moves. This limit should include reflection and transmission time. Persons not able to meet these time controls must show evidence of reflection time not exceeding 30 days. This would give a reasonable expectation of length for a game and make the time controls more meaningful. The integrity of Correspondence Chess has been compromised by allowing for the claim of no reflection time. If a person remits a move on the same that it is received, no reflection time can be claimed. This is obviously absurd and makes a mockery of the concept of reflection time. One day of reflection time should be charged for every day or part of a day."

Ray Gallagher suggests, "I am currently playing my third USCF Correspondence Chess event. While my experience is limited to postal transmission only I feel that there is no need to change the time limits now in effect. E-mail only lessens the travel time of the move from player A to player B. It will not speed reflection and/or excused time. It will only speed transmission time. The only difference will be that resubmissions will be greatly aided. E-mail is automatically self-documenting and should prevent a number of misunderstandings. (and deceptions.) This medium of play needs no rules changes. Increased use of the net can only enhance Chess in our lives."

Any questions or comments related to USCF Correspondence Chess, contact: USCF Correspondence Chess Director, Joan DuBois at: [email protected]