There are many players here who would say that their OTB (over-the-board) playing ability is priority, and that CC (correspondence chess) is part of their training for OTB. i.e. their CC rating/ability is not their main concern. In such cases, players often adapt their CC playing approach to mimic OTB play to some extent. My question is, how far would you take this? Would you mimic every possible aspect of OTB where feasible?
Some examples points…
- use of opening books/DBs… during initial play or only for post-game analysis?
- calculation… many people don’t use the analysis board or move pieces on a real board… but do you then make your move online or check your analysis by moving the pieces?
- time control… would you consider limiting how many minutes you have to choose a move?
My opinion would be no opening references during play; no moving of pieces prior to moving; and using a clock to force myself to move within, say, 5 mins per move. So I’m guessing “make it as close to OTB” is best.
Thoughts?
I have goals here (and other correspondence play), but my OTB performance is the priority. Development of chess strength is not compromised by using the analysis board, databases, and several days per move. CC is part of the pursuit of the truth of the position (as Smyslov advocated, and Silman emphasizes in his Reassess series). As I pursue this truth in CC, I gain more resources for performing under the conditions of OTB play.
I'd say that it works. It took me nine years to break out of C class (get to 1600 OTB), but I'm still on pace to get over 1700 a mere 18 months after reaching 1600.
Originally posted by VarenkaPlayers move the pieces during post-game analysis; does this hurt their game play?
But what if a player depends upon these factors too much? Surely then their OTB strength is compromised?
No.
I suppose that the analysis board, as with anything else, could become a crutch that you then depend upon. It's not whether you use it, but how.
I can tell you all without a doubt - my OTB play has recently become very strong (well, much better - lol) because of playing CC. I played OTB on and off about 2 years ago, (first time in a long while, I used to play lots years ago) anyhow, I was absolutely awful, almost embarassing. So I quit it and joined here, less embarassing you see. I'm back playing OTB now again for about a month, against the same guys and I'm doing very well indeed. In saying that... I do my do my daily tactics and read a lot of chess books, but I'm putting my success down to the games I've played here.
Originally posted by WulebgrBut it doesn't improve their calculation ability either.
Players move the pieces during post-game analysis; does this hurt their game play?
No.
There are few CC practices that significantly hurt OTB play. That's not my discussion point. I'm interested in skills that are important to OTB play that may not get exercised enough during CC, esp. if certain approaches are taken (use of DBs; moving pieces; etc). Saying "doing X does no harm" is fair enough, but more relevant is "doing Y exercises more OTB skills than doing X".
Originally posted by omulcusobolaniTrue – in itself, it has to be a plus point.
after repeatedly checking a line in a book you'll memorize it and knowing opening lines can't hurt your otb skills.
However, an OTB player will often find themselves “on their own” in the opening, regardless of how much theory they try to learn. Playing the opening well, based on individual skill rather than raw knowledge, needs to be practiced. CC without DBs would exercise this more. Just an alternative consideration.
Personally,
I use a database if I care about the game (when tournament round = 6, you can bet I do), the advantage of this is that I now know some obscure benko lines that I would surely suffer over for a long time in a OTB game. In my english opening, this isn't as important as I usually can play thematically and I'm ok, but this is highly important in sharp positions.
Secondly I rarely use the analyze board feature. If I do, I always think it out in my head first and check it on the analysis board.
Originally posted by onyx2006I think CC helps a lot of players with their OTB play. But my question remains... do you think the way you play CC is "optimised" for improving your OTB play? Do you use DBs or analysis board? etc.
my OTB play has recently become very strong (well, much better - lol) because of playing CC.
Originally posted by VarenkaDo you know that such great players as Alekhine and Keres have played CC when they were young?
But it doesn't improve their calculation ability either.
There are few CC practices that significantly hurt OTB play. That's not my discussion point. I'm interested in skills that are important to OTB play that may not get exercised enough during CC, esp. if certain approaches are taken (use of DBs; moving pieces; etc). Saying "doing X does no harm" is fair enough, but more relevant is "doing Y exercises more OTB skills than doing X".
CC gives experience - helping you understand typical positions which rises from openings you playing, helping you find combinations and positional options in positions in which you wouldnt notice them before. To say nothing about endgames in which you need experience for pleying them good.
As a teenager my first OTB tmt. gave me a rating of 1667. Not too bad but I was stuck there for a long time. Meanwhile my postal rating went to over 1900. I couldn’t figure out why I seemed to be improving but my OTB rating wouldn’t budge. Finally I realized that while playing postal (which was mostly what I played) I freely shifted pieces around and always analyzed from the White side even if I had Black. What had been happening was because of my postal habits, I couldn’t visualize the position OTB worth two dead flies. So if you play CC chess, don’t forget to train yourself in the area of visualization or you’ll be handicapping yourself OTB.
Originally posted by KorchI agree with your points. Nobody is saying CC is bad for chess development. But there are different ways of playing CC. For a given position, I can make a move with moving a single piece. Alternatively I can fill pages with written variations. I've done both on RHP. None of these are bad, but the former helps OTB play more.
Do you know that such great players as Alekhine and Keres have played CC when they were young?.
"Which CC practices help OTB the most" is my discussion here... not "does CC help OTB".
Originally posted by VarenkaYes.
I think CC helps a lot of players with their OTB play. But my question remains... do you think the way you play CC is "optimised" for improving your OTB play? Do you use DBs or analysis board? etc.
As I've said, CC is part of a quest for the truth in the position. The analysis board (or a chess set)--I use both--aids the calculation of variations because you can look at the position. If it becomes a crutch, it can hurt. It need not.
zebano states it well:
Originally posted by zebano
Secondly I rarely use the analyze board feature. If I do, I always think it out in my head first and check it on the analysis board.
Originally posted by VarenkaI think that imposing self-discipline to mimic OTB play can be quite useful. I don't do it because CC is part of a study regimen: I use it to try new openings, while honing my main ones.
I agree with your points. Nobody is saying CC is bad for chess development. But there are different ways of playing CC. For a given position, I can make a move with moving a single piece. Alternatively I can fill pages with written variations. I've done both on RHP. None of these are bad, but the former helps OTB play more.
"Which CC practices help OTB the most" is my discussion here... not "does CC help OTB".
In answer to your question, I'd say that such self-discipline (the mimic strategy) is not the most helpful use of CC play. Use CC's features to excell at CC, and to improve your understanding of the game. Use live games (OTB and online) to practice the OTB skills that you are after.
I mainly use the analysis board in endgames, and only after working out the line in my head. My OTB endgames, I replay against Fritz, sometimes over and over until I get them right.