Would it be worthwhile to consider if we can have rankings in Correspondence format? I do not see the logic of not having it...
Yes I most certainly think so.
yes i think so too.
it would allow us to know how many players there are in the range you would like to play in. Now you have no idea.
Could be a useful source of information, especially since correspondance chess seems not so popular.
Well we don’t even know that in fact, do we?
Lichess correspondence is leisure only. Engines are prohibited, but the prohibition cannot be patrolled for correspondence. That is why ICCF accepts engine use.
Actually, I believe that Correspondence is in fact "patroled" (at least for rated games).
The site seems to feel that providing rankings would greatly encourage Crookery...and they may well (unfortunately) have a point.
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/L66qCIRk)
> Lichess correspondence is leisure only. Engines are prohibited, but the prohibition cannot be patrolled for correspondence. That is why ICCF accepts engine use.
ok. Even if it would be so and i’m(we are) aware of many, many differences between different timecontrols.
Some say that correspondance chess is no chess. That’s all fine whit me.
But how would that be a reason for whitholding information? Other sites do. And where is the problem exactly, since it’s only leisure? That’s rather "contradictio in terminis", isn’t it? If it aint “serious”, there can not be a “problem" either.
"correspondance chess is no chess"
* More than bullet.
"Other sites"
* Their problem.
"where is the problem exactly"
* Rankings or a leaderboard for correspondence make an incentive to use engines in it.
"If it aint serious, there can not be a problem"
* A leaderboard or ranking make it more serious, which provides incentive for engine use.
It cannot be rated because of the access to the opening book database that could last 25 moves before the player actually uses their brain.
ok I see your point
it just would be cool to see the highest rated correspondence player