About the CC Forum

Welcome to USCF's Correspondence Chess Forum. We frequently offer a topic for discussion but welcome comments related to any topic already in the CC Forum. We do insist that the tone of the comments be offered and presented in a professional manner. USCF has sole discretion regarding comments not being appropriate for posting on its website. This area is an excellent opportunity for Correspondence Chess players to be heard and be involved in making USCF Correspondence Chess even better.

You can respond by e-mail to [email protected]

Next Forum topic

The continuing topic for discussion in November is: Move Dispute

"I recently handled a move dispute involving a game played via e-mail. The information which both players provided to me by e-mail was identical except for the move in question. It was impossible to tell which player altered the move. What would be your ruling?"

NOTE FROM CCD: I'm leaving this topic up for a few more weeks as it has generated several comments and I'd like to receive more.

Joan DuBois

Correspondence Chess Director

You can respond by e-mail to [email protected] regarding this topic or any other topic of interest to correspondence players.

Yeah, I realize that email messages can be altered. So this really is a "my word against yours" situation. Each email has a message ID attached to it, but some mail servers retain the original message, while others don't. And even if they do, you run into a privacy issue as well as trying to track down which email server has the original message. Finding a needle in a haystack is easier. Also, without the original message it is difficult to prove who altered it.

The only way to ensure "integrity", in my opinion, is to require that the player send a copy of the move to the USCF. But there are *big* disadvantages to this:

1. You will get flooded with email. You'll need help just sorting and filing all of the email.
2. If you require this of the email players, you may have to require it of the postal players as well -- I almost guarantee that the email players will scream "foul". And the postal players won't like it either.

I guess another approach would be to have each player explain, in their opinion, why the move was played, and run it by a TD of Master strength to see which explanation is more plausible? But that can get ugly as well. And also very subjective.

Just out of curiosity, has this issue ever come up with "snail mail" postal games?

I feel for you -- this is really a "no-win" situation.

I don't know how to go back and establish who is lying in this case, without having some computer detective analyze both hard drives, but I do have a solution for the future. Make a rule that each player must CC the USCF on all moves. I don't know how much space that would take up in your computer but it certainly would avoid any future disputes of that type.

Wesley Green notes:

This is the single biggest drawback to e-mail in correspondence chess, since there is no unalterable source of information comparable to the original postcard (which can be "altered", but the alteration is at least potentially detectable). Unless one were able to obtain an independent copy from the e-mail provider for one of the participants (a very unlikely possibility unless the dispute was raised immediately, and even then a major effort if even possible), it would be essentially impossible to tell who was being truthful.

I suppose the only viable option in response is to restart play from the disputed move, though clearly if it really was a blunder by the player who made it he is getting a definite and unfair advantage out of it. In the case of a single instance, there is no telling who is producing altered evidence. Obviously this could not be used as a frequently repeatable technique since repeated occurrences of such a dispute involving the same player would be a pretty clear indication that player is the guilty party.

The only way to avoid this problem would be to require all players to copy the tournament office as an addressee on every move sent. Does your server have a lot of extra drive space available?

Second paragraph, regarding whether to forfeit for a rule violation, is not clear about what type of violation. ICCF and CCLA provide for forfeit on second exceeding of time limit, where the time limit is 30 days for 10 moves, also allow forfeit for serious insulting or disruptive behavior.

Five days added thinking time seems a fair penalty for sending an invalid move, or no move, but additionally allowing the offender's clock to keep running is too harsh, since the offender in most cases believes he/she sent a valid move. Allowing the offender's clock to keep running would also encourage the opponent to be slow about querying the invalid move. And what if the opponent is on vacation?

On failing to note thinking time totals, the United States Correspondence Chess Championship assesses a penalty of 5 days thinking time, same as for an invalid move; this is too harsh. Maybe 2 days penalty on the third an subsequent offenses might be appropriate.

Normally correspondence chess is played under the same rules, USCF or FIDE, applicable to over-the-board chess, except where not applicable to correspondence chess, such as touch-move and time control. I am not up on the latest rules regarding an unnoticed illegal move but suppose you could refer to USCF rules for an over-the-board tournament. But there could be a problem determining the resulting position after an illegal move. I once saw Nb7e7 in an over-the-board game that was not noticed by the opponent until well after the game, but how would a tournament director treat Ne7 or N-K7 on the score sheet? If there were two knights, which one would move illegally?

ICCF requires both players to report results including game score, win, lose or draw; that may increase the workload but helps insure accurate reporting. In case of more than one game with the same opponent, players could note "first game", or "second game", reiterating result of the first game.

E-mail transmission is not instantaneous, sometimes there is a little delay, and sometimes one's server or one's opponent's server is not working right. So there might be time in transit. When I used a free e-mail account with Realm BBS in Louisville KY, often the time of transmission would be one to three days; one message from Mexico took five days.

Chess is a game requiring integrity, honesty and good sportsmanship of the players, postal chess even more so. The first assumption should be that it was an honest mistake and surely one honest mistake is not too much to ask.