Many people misunderstand the nature of correspondence (these days, server) chess. It never has, nor can it be, of the same nature as over the board play. To begin with, the time constraints are longer. So is the prohibition against moving the pieces around to analyze.

CC has always allowed the use of books but prohibited consultation with other players. Before computers consultation was not really a problem anyway because for the most part chess players are conscious of the pecking order. Stronger players usually won’t give weaker ones the time of day.

Opening books and db’s will only get you so far. Using either one only delays the amount of time before you have to start choosing your own moves…read before you start making mistakes. I have a 2.3 million game db and a recent survey of openings against players rated over 2000 showed we left the db games (i.e. were on our own) after about 12-15 moves. For players under 2000 it was far fewer. So, even following a large db will not help all that much. Databases, properly used, are to research ideas and act as guidelines on how to play certain openings, that’s all.

As for endgame books (or db’s), it’s rare you will find exactly the same position in the book that you are facing in your own game. Even if you do your opponent is unlikely to exactly follow the book’s moves. For example in Fine’s BCE, the section on K&P vs. K&P endings gives a lot of examples and general advice, like positions where one side queens first, one side queens with check, both sides queen, one side capture the P and so forth. These are only examples and if you reach such an ending, you are on your own in figuring out how they apply to your position. Rather like looking up a middlegame example on how to utilize, say, a N outpost. You study the examples, but the application is up to you.

All this is quite different than allowing an engine to select your moves. Even in those cases where an opponent is using an engine, owing to a lot of factors, it is not uncommon for a player to select other than the best move. This is why even in high level CC play where engine use is allowed the strongest players finish with the best scores and somebody loses most of their games. Engine use does not guarantee success against good players.

So in the final analysis utilizing books and databases in CC or server play offers only a minimal advantage because YOU still have the responsibility of selecting what you think is the best move.

The Correspondence Chess Player's Creed

By John C. Knudsen

There is more to correspondence chess than playing the game. If I were just interested in the game itself, I would be satisfied playing my computer all day and night, or by replaying the games of famous masters. I play correspondence chess because I enjoy the stimulation of the contest and interaction with other people. I will attempt to treat each of my opponents with respect and courtesy. If my opponent is a beginner, and I am experienced, I will not become annoyed when my opponent does not resign. I will prove my superior skills by making strong moves and ending the game. I will become familiar with the rules and try my best to abide by them. I will not be a "silent withdrawal" from my games and will promptly notify my opponents and the tournament secretary if I can no longer continue in a tournament. When the game is over, I will always send a thank-you card to my opponent, regardless of the result. I will also remain tolerant of opponents who must withdraw from their games, because sometimes the troubles of life interfere with avocations.

I will at all times respect the correspondence chess administrators who have been selected to watch over and regulate an event. If I disagree with a decision, I will gracefully appeal to a higher authority. I will not become involved in petty disputes with dedicated administrators who are trying their best to do the right thing. On the other hand, I will always expect the rules to be enforced on an equal basis. There is virtually no situation where politics and correspondence chess can exist with each other peacefully. The game is the thing, along with the interaction with my opponents - many of whom will become my friends. There is no place in correspondence chess for the legal beagle, or the person who is always on guard for some vague insult. It is, after all, a game, and should be treated as such.

I will only use a computer to analyse in my correspondence chess games if it is allowed by the rules and my conscience will permit it. In that event, I will at least have the decency to inform my opponent. Perhaps, then, my opponent will want to buy a better program, and then the game could evolve to a higher level.

If my correspondence game is published when it is over, I will not gloat over my opponent's mistakes, but will attempt to clarify the ideas in an impartial way. I will not assume that my reader is skilled or understands the ideas involved, but will attempt to show how and why things happened as they did. I will give credit where credit is due.

I will try and give something back to the game I love so much. Whether it is in encouraging a beginning player, writing an article, annotating a game for publication, editing a magazine, or serving as an administrator, I will try and promote all that is good about correspondence chess. At this moment I will realize that it is true - we are all friends.