English Chess Forum

I recently received a list of proposed rules for ICCF competitions and had to read this one a few times https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1541

The important bit is...

"2026-056 Counting ETL Wins as Half-Points Specifically When It Comes to Earning Title Norms
Proposed by Dennis M. Doren, Rules Director

This is one of many proposals to help Congress determine the future direction of the ICCF. These proposals are designed to obtain clear direction from Congress in addressing major organizational issues.

This proposal addresses the issue that many title norms nowadays are earned through the luck of an opponent going ETL rather than through enough wins based on over-the-board skill."

ETL is their abbreviation for "Exceeding the time limit". It continues, "All ETL wins will be counted as half-points specifically and only relative to a player reaching title-norm thresholds, with the proviso that any player can appeal for the remaining full point through adjudication of the game's final position (by demonstrating the game already reached a won position)."

The first time I read that I thought it was completely insane. I haven't changed my mind.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 2:36 pm

I recently received a list of proposed rules for ICCF competitions and had to read this one a few times https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1541

Haven't I seen it suggested that time losses are now the only circumstances in which stockfish fails to draw with itself?

Correspondence chess has had a good and generally worthy innings, but isn't it now time to admit computers have made it basically obsolete?

(certainly at the highest competitive levels, as perhaps opposed to a "bit of fun")

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 2:52 pm

Haven't I seen it suggested that time losses are now the only circumstances in which stockfish fails to draw with itself?

How does such a thing occur?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:37 pm

How does such a thing occur?

Which thing? Losses by exceeding the time limit or use of engines in high level correspondence games.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:29 pm

Correspondence chess has had a good and generally worthy innings, but isn't it now time to admit computers have made it basically obsolete?

(certainly at the highest competitive levels, as perhaps opposed to a "bit of fun")

I play a lot of correspondence (or anyway, that's what they call it) on lichess, six games currently in progress. Some people play many more.

Obviously it is possible to cheat and obviously people mostly don't, but I rarely play rated games as I'm reluctant to put in the effort required for a proper game and lose points if the effort was futile in the first place.

That said, reputedly lichess don't check out reports for cheating in casual correspondence games and I can certainly identify two accounts I have played, and subsequently examined thoroughly, which are not plausibly honest ones. (I will not be identifiying them publicly.)

There's not much to be done about this, and occasionally I do have an opponent who really whiffs, but all you can really do is take precautions when choosing and accepting opponents, like exercising caution if their correspondence rating is several hundred points better than their other ratings, or thinking twice before accepting an opponent very recently registered with a one hundred per cent record.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:43 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:37 pm

How does such a thing occur?

Which thing? Losses by exceeding the time limit or use of engines in high level correspondence games.

Don't worry about it, this is a misunderstanding on my part.

ICCF allows the use of computers as they know they cannot stop it! It is still possible to win games if the opponent is careless, but it is rare... ICCF are proposing events where computers are not allowed, but that relies on trusting the players. Not that ICCF is all that good at enforcing the rules it should do.

I play online sometimes for amusement only, but it is irritating losing to someone rated 600 when they have found a mate in 12 somehow.

Some events have quite a few wins/losses: https://www.iccf.com/event?id=111308

Failed format below:

BCCC/RES/25-27 D, British Correspondence Chess Reserves 25-27 Section D
TD Komar, Miroslav
Rated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Score Wins SB RG Place
1 ENG 212116 CCM Spanton, Tim 2330 (75) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.5 7 47 0 1
2 ENG 210719 Beer, Doug 2050 (83) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 9 6 44 0 2
3 WLS 211672 IM Lockwood, Austin 2383 (88) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 6 43.5 0 3
4 ENG 213221 CCM Baxter, Harold 2352 (77) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 8.5 5 42.25 0 4
5 SCO 212273 CCE Bruce, Robert 1997 (44) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 8.5 5 41.5 0 5
6 ENG 211824 CCM Graham, Oliver 2379 (54) ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 8 5 37 0 6
7 ENG 211163 Tymms, J. D. M. 1813 (73) 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 6 31.5 0 7
8 ENG 213224 Hardingham, David 1895 (83) 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 6.5 4 26 0 8
9 ENG 211804 Tupper, Alex 1662 (102) 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4.5 4 11.25 0 9
10 ENG 212069 Kirk, Matthew 1852 (70) 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 4 3 10.5 0 10
11 ENG 211815 Picken, R. David 1684 (92) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ 1.5 1 1.25 0 11
12 ENG 212191 Ruffle, Alan 1371 (59) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.5 0 12
13 SCO 620635 Burridge, Raymond John 1543 (65) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0.5 0 0.75 0 13

What is the figure in brackets?

It's something to do with the reliability of a player's rating, based (I think) on number of games completed. The lower the figure, the more reliable the rating is considered, I believe

The first time I read that I thought it was completely insane. I haven't changed my mind.

Presumably because it discourages resignation, as one's chances of improving one's final placing is enhanced by the policy of using ETL to end the game.