Using an analysis board during turn-based games: good or bad?

Hi guys

I wanted to hear what the chess community might have to say about the use of any kind of analysis board during correspondence ('turn-based') games. I'm definitely NOT talking about using engines, but simply the use of a separate board to analyze a position during a game before committing to a move, etc.

I've heard some players describe this as 'cheating'. While I wouldn't go that far myself, I could see how habitually resorting to an analysis board during games could perhaps impede the development of a player's ability to analyze internally. Obviously when we play 'live' or OTB, no such external analysis tool is to hand!

Or is regular use of an analysis board during turn-based games to be encouraged as a way of developing the internal capacity?

I'm assuming here that the goal is to become a stronger chess player overall - not to win more correspondence games!

What do you think? What is your experience? What do the masters have to say on this subject?

Many thanks

DM

Good question. I tend to use it (and still make blunders), but I can see how sitting and really studying the position without moving the pieces is probably better for you in the long run.

It will be interesting to see how people weigh in on this.

Not the first thread on this subject.  Folks who consider it counterproductive aren't going to use it; folks who think they should take advantage of all their legal resources will.  No one's going to change anyone else's mind.  Not only do I use it but I paste my analysis into the notes so when I come back to the game I don't have to start from scratch.  Of course my opponent rarely chooses the move I thought he'd make, but that's another story.

Use of an analysis board is common in correspondence chess.  Whether it's on a computer screen or with a physical board does not matter -- both are allowed by the rules.  Use of the analysis board is perfectly legal and therefore ethical.  It is a good habit, if you want to learn to think more deeply.

You know you can do both!

Analyze the position without moving pieces and try to figure out which moves are good or bad.  This works on your ability to calculate.

However, while in an over the board game, you must decide on a move without moving anything else, in Correspondence, you can then get that analysis board out and run thru everything you've calculated, see if possibly you overlooked a tactical shot for you or your opponent.  You still have that ability then to correct your error before you move.

So what you are now doing is working on your calculation and ability to think deep, but then not resorting to playing the wrong move as a consequence of a miscalculation.

Yes, this process takes longer, but then again, Correspondence takes longer than Over the Board chess!

Fascinating and constructive replies from each of you, thanks so much.

I don't think the legality of using an analysis board is in dispute.

Perhaps more specifically what I'm seeking feedback on is this: does regular use of an external analysis board in correspondence games help or hinder development of the internal analytical skills required OTB (or in any other 'live' format)? I'm mostly thinking about the more lengthy time controls OTB, ie. 'standard' or 'classical' chess, but not exclusively. Does anyone know what any of the masters have said on this?

I know that NM's aww-rats, Dan Heisman amongst many many others have said that using the analysis board is definitely beneficial to your chess, and also recommend spending a couple of hours on a single move! (unfortunately, that is way too long for most people).

What I often do in my turn-based games is what ThrillerFan said; calculate mentally and if I'm stuck or I want to double-check any tactics that could arise, then I use the analysis board. It's a process that has really helped my chess improve in the past year (my blitz/bullet live ratings went up 300-400 points by doing this). It also has helped me with learning openings by using the database.

Back to your question, I would think that if you exclusively used the analysis board, you could get too reliant on it, and your visualisation skills will not be very good (or not improve much).

Then again, I am not a master!

But if many other masters recommend correspondence as a tool to help you improve (and the other aids that come with it such as analysis board and databases), it can't be that bad, can it?

I tend to agree, Thomas - thanks for such clear and helpful reflections.

You have also expanded the discussion to the use of databases such as chess.com Game Explorer during correspondence games. That's perhaps more controversial... or is it?

ThrillerFan is exactly right.  The best use of correspondence chess is to play every move as if it's otb rules, deciding your move the traditional way, and then DON'T PLAY IT.  Now, spend hours analyzing the position with the analysis board method.  Figure out what you missed during your initial pass, and most importantly, figure out WHY YOU MISSED IT.  

You guys that are not doing this are missing a great way of improving.  I can't think of many things better than this for a player.  It helps you see what is lacking in your otb thought process in game situations, it helps you stretch your otb analysis abilities as far as you can (you want to try to get your move right before you try it with the analysis board, so you try to see everything you possibly can before moving the pieces), and it helps you see concretely why things work and why they don't work.

It takes a little discipline to do it this way, but there's no reason you can't.  Highly recommended.

Going back to databases, I wouldn't say it is more controversial, but probably lesser used than the analysis boards. I suppose that people may think that by using a database, they are using the moves of other players and so that is cheating. I have played at least three games that involved my opponent blundering in the opening, and infact the exact game had been played before in a database, so I simply copied the moves for an easy win (that may indeed be a little controversial, but perfectly legal!).

However I have heard of players that have re-played a game played by someone else on this site banned for engine use, and so effectively playing engine moves without using an engine! That may be more controversial, but if you aren't using an engine yourself...

As I have mentioned, I have used databases, and still use them regularly in my turn-based games and for preparations into opening lines that I have seen at my club, if I want to see what the possible lines are, or where I went wrong.

If it was cheating they wouldnt put the option right next to the board, you would have to import the game like you would if you wanted to put it in an engine.

Yep. Some databases, including one I use, allow the FEN of the position to be imported, meaning you don't have to set up the position (and I would presume Chess.com has it there for that reason as well).

The only issue is that it can also be plugged into an engine as well, making cheating easier. That could be a potential problem, but at the end of the day, cheaters gonna cheat...

Unfortunately, the use of engines that makes turn based not as enjoyable. 

We have already have had these threads before. 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-the-presence-of-analysis-board-in-online-chess-acceptable

The above link is my forum in which heated discussion took place.

Well you could easily just recreate the position on your own chess board at home, so all chess.com are doing is providing the same facility for everyone to use. 

Yes I use it myself. 

Not using an analysis board in correspondence chess is akin to playing OTB chess blindfolded.  It may demonstrate a higher level of skill to do it successfully, but you get no brownie points for not playing out the range of possibilities with a board.

I don't think correspondence players at the highest levels would play without an analysis board.

More truly fantastic and insightful comments from all of you, thanks!

thechessplaya5 has kindly provided the link to a forum thread which has previously taken on some of these very questions.

To prevent drifting off-topic, can I suggest we set aside the question of databases and even engines, virtual or physical analysis boards, etc...

Some kind of analysis board is always present in correspondence or turn-based chess, whether you want it or not, whether it's a click away in a separate digital window, whether you have it set up beside your bed in good old boxwood, whether you knock one up quickly on the train using little cut out bits of paper chessmen and a hand-scribbled board, or whatever. So:

Do you use it?

How do you use it?

How much?

How can it strengthen or weaken our internal analytic skills?

How can it improve our chess?

How did correspondence players do in the good old times? When they were no computers, engines but paper mails?

Did they analyze with the help of a wooden board?

I think so. What I do is trying to choose my move without using the board, and then start pushing wood in order to find something better.

The old joke in correspondence circles was that the player with the largest chess library wins.  I imagine the serious players would have multiple chess boards set up.