Playing Online (Pros and Cons)

The first time that I played chess via the internet was 1989 when my younger brother let me play in his place some regularly scheduled telnet games with a friend of his in another city. Both my brother and his friend were programmers. The Internet Chess Club (ICC) came into existence a few years later. I recall my brother claiming that he helped with some of the programming.

When ICC started charging a membership fee, Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) was created to maintain a free playing environment. After that one evening in 1989, the next time I played online was a now defunct site called Net-Chess in 1998. I joined ICC in 1999 and started playing regularly--maybe almost every day. I also started watching live broadcasts of Grandmaster events.

ICC, FICS, Net-Chess, and Playchess (where I started in 2003) are servers that require software on your computer and send small amounts of data over the internet. Website hosted chess, to my knowledge, began with Yahoo! It was terrible. Chess.com, which came online in 2007 and added live chess after a few months, began to change the quality of website chess. The distinctions summarized in Edward Collins' Yahoo! Chess vs. The Chess Servers are no longer valid.

LiChess, Chess.com, Chess24, and others now have hundreds of thousands of games every day. They also host Grandmaster events and other tournaments, as well as organizing their own. ICC and Playchess also seem to be doing well. It has been several months since I have played on FICS, and many years since I enjoyed the experience. The lag there is terrible, and I lack confidence that they effectively root out cheats.

Last night I played in the World Open Game 7 Championship on ICC. It is organized by the Continental Chess Association. The time control was 7+2. I was very low in the pairing chart in the open section. In seven rounds, I managed one win and two draws. I beat the only opponent who was lower rated (according to USCF standard OTB rating, which was used for pairings). I had chances in several of the games that I lost.

I threw away a clear win from this position, although my opponent had done the same earlier in the game. It ended as a draw one move before we had lone kings.

Black to move

In the next game, I again threw away a clear advantage. This time, I went on to lose.

White to move

My previous post here highlights how these types of errors are often the product of haste.

Next weekend, I am playing in the World Open. The time control is 60 + 10, longer than any time control I have experienced in live online play (I have played hundreds of online correspondence games). This morning, I tried two games at 30 + 10. Both opponents were relatively weak and I won easily. Even so, I was happy that in 46 moves, I made no blunders (according to the website's Stockfish 11), and only three inaccuracies. Two of these inaccuracies were opening choices that I might make again. The other missed a vulnerability that could have been attacked.

One of our strongest local players offers a summary of the pros and cons of online play at his chess tutoring site: Casey Chess Tutoring. I also recommend him as a teacher if you are looking for some instruction.

Rather than creating my own list of the pros and cons, or repeating his, I want to address one point: cheating.

How common is cheating online?

A high percentage of my online correspondence opponents have been banned from the website where we played because of cheating; perhaps 8-10%. In live play, cheating is less frequent, percentage-wise. Nonetheless, like many others, I am usually suspicious when I get outplayed. I often report my opponents, and often check the engine analysis before or after such reporting. Most players are clean. Nonetheless, it happens. During last night's preliminary remarks by an organizer, he stated that they go over every game before an event is rated, and that they usually (he may have said, "always") find cases of cheating.

I was on the organizing committee for the Washington State Elementary Chess Tournament, which went online this year. We had detailed procedures for rooting out cheats, and we had some ethical breaches that we needed to address. We also had nearly 1200 participants! The number of suspicious players was in the dozens, and most were determined to be clean. More than 99% of the participants never faced a suspicious opponent.

A few weeks ago, I ran into a suspicious player in an online tournament. That player's computer match rate in the event was 97%. To be fair, however, all of these games were relatively short. I submitted a cheating report. Later, I learned that my opponent is an underrated and very young youth player. The cheating accusation was likely quickly dismissed by the website. The player is clean. The third time we played, I won.

Cheating also occurs OTB. Is is less common? We need to consider the percentages. The number of games that are played online is astronomically large and the number of cheats relatively small (even if it happens every single day). I do not know whether anyone has compiled clear data on the question. Hence we are left with impressions and anecdotes.

My anecdote is this: I have lost to cheats online. I also have won against them. I have played more than 150,000 live games online. More than 150,000 of these games have been 100% clean. The risk of facing a cheat is much lower than the fears associated with it.

Do not let fear of online cheating stand in the way of playing chess during a time of social isolation. Do consider playing in tournaments, even tournaments that have entry fees and cash prizes. In my experience, the quality of play in online tournaments is worth it.

Rating Inflation

It has become common in the chess world to assert that ratings today are inflated relative to historic ratings. As more and more players surpass Robert J. Fisher's peak rating of 2785, chess enthusiasts lament the inflation that creates the illusion that those players are stronger than Fischer. It cannot be true. Bobby Fisher is the best who ever moved a pawn.

Computer Scientist Ken Regan studies individual positions through computer analysis and compiles databases of hundreds of thousands of such positions. Through examining a player's moves over a batch of positions, he creates an Intrinsic Performance Rating (IPR). He develops methodology to catch cheaters. His analysis is also useful for estimating the Elo rating of players in the past.

What he found was that rating inflation does not exist. Between 1976 and 2009, there has been no significant change in IPR for players at all FIDE ratings ... the IPR for players rated between 2585 and 2615 has remained relatively constant over time. Today's thousands of grandmasters and dozens of players rated over 2700 indicate a legitimate proliferation of skill.
Howard Goldowsky, "How to Catch a Chess Cheater: Ken Regan Finds Moves Out of Mind," Chess Life (June 2014), 30.

Such is one of the many gems in the cover story of this months Chess Life, the magazine of the United States Chess Federation (USCF). I heartily recommend the article.

Reading Annotations

Playing a novelty on move twenty in a line of the French Defense brought victory in the final game of a tournament, evened the score with my opponent, and gave me a share of first place. The event was a French Defense Thematic on Chess.com that began in July 2009 and finished a few days ago. The event began with 32 players paired in groups of four. Within each group, contestants played two games against each opponent with the top two in each group advancing to the next round. By the fifth round there were five players in two groups. There would have been three players in the final round, but the third player was banned for cheating. The banned player scored an impressive 28-0-0 record and was in clear first until the purge.

Chess.com and similar sites offer a form of correspondence chess sometimes called turn-based chess. Time controls are expressed in days per move, and there is a general understanding, rendered clear in the site's Terms of Service agreement, that players may use books and databases, but not chess engines or friends. Previous posts in Chess Skills addressing these rules were put forth in January 2009, January 2010, and March 2011.

The process leading to my victory in the final game of the event sheds light on some of the available resources for correspondence chess. In an ironic twist, a brief lapse in the research process--a failure of memory while making moves in a cafe during lunch--led to more laborious research and the win. Without this lapse on my part, the game may have ended in a draw.

Ziryab (2019) - albatros1 (2294)
French Defense Thematic Tournament, Chess.com, 25.09.2011

1.e4 e6

This is the starting position.

2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4

My opponent opts for the MacCutcheon Variation. I have played this myself on several occasions. It can lead to a position that looks terribly awkward, but which is quite playable. I selected a line that has given me trouble when I have Black. So far in this game, I am playing wholly from knowledge of the opening gained through extensive play, use of ChessBase Training CDs, and study of a handful of excellent books on the French Defense, especially Lev Psakhis, French Defense: Steinitz, Classical and Other Systems (2004). I can look at these resources during this game, but up to this point have seen no reason to do so.

5.e5 h6 6.Bd2!

The line that gives me trouble, and that contributed to my near abandonment of the MacCutcheon variation. From the Black side, I much prefer 6.exf6 hxg5 7.fxg7 Rg8. Psakhis gives a lot of attention to lines following my move.

6...Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 

 White to move

I might have taken a look at a database at this point. I do not remember for certain. My first impulse is towards the move that I played, but I may have taken a look at the Chess.com Game Explorer to confirm my memory of the main lines. Next to the move list in the Chess.com game view are several links: "analyze" opens a new window with a board on which it is possible to move the pieces around for both players; "explore" opens a new window with database information (see image below at move 18); "get PGN" offers several options for viewing the game score in PGN format, or saving it as a file to one's computer; and "flip board" lets a player see the board from the opponent's side.

I use the analysis board with some regularity, but first labor to work things out without it. Online correspondence chess, while interesting on its own, serves as training for OTB chess. By default, the Game Explorer opens to a collection of master games, but users may select a different collection, including previous games played by any player on the site, including the current opponent. I often will download the PGN file and then open it in ChessBase 11 where I can explore databases vastly more comprehensive than the Master Games collection in Chess.com's Game Explorer. Within ChessBase 11, I also can access the extensive annotated games from Knut Neven's two ChessBase training CDs on the French Defense. I refer myself to Neven's annotations in a marginal note that I penciled into my copy of Psakhis's book, as it happens, at the position reached with my move 11 in this game.

At some point late in the opening stage of this game, I saved the PGN file to my computer and began using the five million game collection in Big Database 2011 and the somewhat larger collection in ChessBase's Online Database, one click away from their proprietary software. I did not use Neven's CDs nor Psakhis's book in this game, although clearly I have used these resources in the past in other games following this opening system. I have been in this position in correspondence, blitz, and OTB games.

8.Qg4 g6 9.Bd3 Nxd2 10.Kxd2 c5 11.h4

Black to move

11.Nf3 is slightly more popular.

By this point in my game, I was spending some time going through top grandmaster games to get a general sense of the patterns of play. The ChessBase software identifies both moves as "hot," but my move as slightly more so. I opted for 11.h4 because it creates action on the kingside, while it is quite clear that Black plans some action on the queenside. In some lines, the knight goes to e2 instead of f3. Nf3 secures the e5 pawn, but Black often launches an attack against the base of White's central pawn chain. Ne2 protects c3. I thought it best to defer my deployment of the knight.

I frequently read chess forums where the subject of database use is discussed, most often by those with minimal experience or knowledge of correspondence chess. They often claim that database users are not using their own brain, but simply imitating others. I disagree. My practice, when I use them at all--I do not always,--varies a bit. Sometimes I use the Game Explorer of ChessBase to watch percentages and steer the game towards favorable lines. I suspect that some of my opponents have done this in a manner that employs extensive research into transpositions as a means to steer the game to a favorable percentage.

So far in this game, I am watching these percentages, but am traveling familiar trails. I am choosing my route on the basis of strategic principles rather than database percentages.

Had I looked at my own previous games, I would have known that an opponent in 2006 played 11.Nf3 against me in a game at Red Hot Pawn, another correspondence site where I played for several years. I lost that game. In this Chess.com event, I previously played 11.h4 in summer 2010 against the player later banned for cheating. I lost.

11...Nc6 12.Qf4 


I played 12.Nf3 in the game that I lost in 2010. I copied into the game score in my database several Grandmaster games that featured 12.Nf3: evidence that I spent some time considering that move.

12...cxd4 13.cxd4 Qa5+ 

White to move

The percentages look very good for Black here.

14.c3

Had I been playing the percentages, I might have selected 14.Ke3. But, I was looking only at games played by the strongest players, many of which ended in a draw. I was content to draw against a stronger player, pick up a few rating points, and finish this tournament in second place. I wanted to be done with it, having found the two days per move rate a bit too frenetic. I prefer three days per move.

14...b5

14...b6 scores better for Black.

15.Qf6 

We are down to four games in Big Database 2011, three of which are found in Chess.com's Game Explorer. The ChessBase online database contains fifteen games in this position with a 70% scoring percentage for White. Had I looked there, I might have developed some confidence of victory. Alas, I had seized on a different idea: I found a line in which White sacrificed a rook to force a draw by repetition.

15...Rf8 16.Ne2 b4 17.Rhc1 Rb8

White to move

At this point, there are two games in Big Database 2011. Game Explorer has one. Black won the game in Explorer: Edlund--Brynell 2003. The other game that I examined ended in a draw, Hermannson--Brynell 2002. My intention was to follow this game. Sometimes I make my moves in the morning, accessing Chess.com via my notebook computer. This computer has ChessBase 11 installed, and thus contains my notes on the game, including both of GM Stellan Brynell's games.

18.Ke3!

The Game Explorer view prior to my opponent's move 17

I played this move on my iPad at lunch in a cafe. Now, we are following Edlund--Brynell, rather than the line I had planned.

18...Ba6 19.cxb4 Nxb4

It was time to do some deeper research. I did not like Edlund's next move. I knew that he lost; I was making efforts to discover where he might have played differently. 20.Bxa6, played by Edlund, continues action on the side of the board where Black is strong. Meanwhile the White queen is out of play due to the decision earlier in the game to prevent Black from castling.

Hermannson's drawing tactics might have suggested a better move here: a sacrifice of material to expose the enemy king. He sacrificed a rook to create perpetual check and a draw by repetition. In this position, a sacrifice of White's bishop, trading it for two pawns, creates some action on the kingside. Instead of battling a rook, queen, and knight with two rooks and a knight, White creates action where he has a queen and knight against a rook. With the battle waging on both sides of the board, the question becomes who gets there first.

18.Ke3 turns out to have been prophylactic, slowing Black's attack.

Screenshot of Edlund's annotations: Informant 90/245

I might have worked out these ideas on my own, but after his loss to Brynell, Robin Edlund annotated the game for Chess Informant. He identified 20.Bxa6 as a dubious move and offered an improvement.

I played Edlund's improvement, and for the next couple of moves, the game followed his annotation. An inferior choice by my opponent on move 22 led to a rapid conclusion.

20.Bxg6! Qb6 21.Nf4 fxg6 22.Qxg6+ Ke7 23.Qg7+ Ke8 24.Ng6 1–0

Credit Chess Informant for this win.

Social Chess iPad/iPhone App: Review

The Social Chess iPad/iPhone app is well-liked by its users, at least by those who take the time to give it a rating on the five-star scale and write a comment. Nearly every reviewer gives it five stars. The comments typically call it the best chess app, but Chess with Friends is the only other app mentioned in comparison. Cult of Mac offers a similar perspective.

Social Chess has a clean interface, implements an Elo rating system, and permits players to chat while playing. Finished games may be saved to an archive or emailed in PGN format. It is simple, ad free, and functional. It works on the iPad and iPhone. It is free.

On the other hand, there is no game clock. There is no way to choose colors when issuing a challenge: the challenger always gets white. A recent update claims to have changed the timing aspect. Now games expire after completion if they are not archived. If a player has not moved in three days, the other player may cancel the game. Perhaps it is possible to claim a win on time as well, but I have not reached that point yet in my efforts.

Comparisons to Chess with Friends intrigue me. I played one game on that app when a friend from Facebook and college--we studied math together--asked me to get the app so we could play a game. He had noticed my frequent posts about chess, including links to completed games at my two favorite turn-based chess sites: Chess World and Chess.com (joining through the links to the right will credit my account).

My only Chess with Friends game is still accessible when I open the app. Games finished last week, on the other hand, have disappeared from my list in the Social Chess app. When I first started playing with Social Chess, all my finished games remained visible, including several abandoned games. I'm glad to see the abandoned games disappear, but would have liked a chance to archive the others in order to save them. Removing completed games via the tardy implementation of time controls suggests that the developer of Social Chess may be largely unfamiliar with turn-based chess--the online version of correspondence.

Social Chess has more features than Chess with Friends. The developer of Social Chess continues to make changes in response to suggestions. If only these two chess apps existed, Social Chess would merits its praise.  Fortunately, there are better apps for playing online in a social environment.

Every game that I have played at Chess World, Chess.com, Red Hot Pawn, Game Knot, and many other sites is saved by the site. Among these, only Chess.com has an iPad app. The app is free, as is membership in the site. Perhaps the Chess.com app carries advertising. As a paying member, I don't see ads. But, in my experience Chess.com is the best social chess app for the iPad. Social Chess is not in the same league. PeeWee soccer is not the World Cup.

With the Chess.com app, I can play my turn-based games at a variety of time controls. Most of these are team matches or tournaments--social features wholly lacking in Social Chess. I can solve tactics problems. I can watch training videos. I can play blitz and bullet. I can post to the extensive chess forums, including a members only forum devoted to discussions of online cheating, cheat detection, and cheater bans. As Social Chess grows, its failure to prevent cheating will ruin it.

One of the pleasures of correspondence chess stems from the research aspect. Playing with Databases is an integral part of play at Chess.com. This aspect is not well-integrated in the Chess.com app. Apps for playing chess on the iPad do not replace play with a normal computer, but they can integrate with play that is carried on over multiple devices: Chess.com does this. Social Chess does not.


Update: 30 October 2011

After posting this review, I sent suggestions to the developer. We have exchanged a series of emails concerning his future plans for updates. At present, I regard Social Chess as overrated due to an astonishing number of five-star reviews by users who have low expectations for iPad/iPhone chess apps. Even so, I trust that there is a future for Social Chess as it improves. In the meantime, I am playing half a dozen games.


Update: 11 August 2013

My review, "Correspondence Chess on the iPhone," updates my experiences and views of SocialChess, as well as several comparable apps. I have employed both iPad and iPhone to play on SocialChess. After my opponent resigned this afternoon, I will be able to leave this app alone for another year. The "improvements" in this app over the past two years have made it vastly more expensive, but not substantially better. Other apps offer far more at less cost. My games will continue, and I will add more, on ChessWorld.net (sadly no iOS app), Chess.com (web and iOS), ChessByPost (exclusively mobile--iOS, Android, Windows), and others. With better alternatives, SocialChess is not worth my time.