You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I frequent a chess IRC channel and recently had an idea to organize team-based correspondence games. The concept is that our channel members would discuss and vote on moves, playing collectively against another opponent or team. However, as I understand it, this might be explicitly against the Lichess Terms of Service. The fair play rules indicate that seeking advice from others is prohibited in both rated and casual correspondence games.
That said, I believe team-based play could be an engaging, enjoyable, and educational format. Playing collaboratively is fun, and offers a sense of camaraderie. Furthermore, such games could be fantastic learning opportunities. Weaker players would be privy to the thought process and strategies of stronger players during the discussions. Advocating for a particular strategy could also help cement the idea for an already experienced player. This kind of environment would foster skill development and a deeper appreciation of the game for all participants.
There is also precedent for team-based chess in the broader chess world, with notable examples like Kasparov vs. The World, Anand vs. The World, and the historic Westminster vs. Paris Chess Club game, which even led to the birth of the French Defense.
I wonder if there might be room for flexibility in this regard, or perhaps an opportunity for Lichess to explicitly support team games as a feature. It seems like a natural extension of the platform's capabilities and could foster even more community engagement.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this suggestion!
P.S. I've also posted this on the feedback forum, but I'm copying it here as I primarily need input from the Lichess leadership team, and I'm hoping it will be easier to get your attention here. Here's the link to the forum post: https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/playing-correspondence-as-a-team
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
I frequent a chess IRC channel and recently had an idea to organize team-based correspondence games. The concept is that our channel members would discuss and vote on moves, playing collectively against another opponent or team. However, as I understand it, this might be explicitly against the Lichess Terms of Service. The fair play rules indicate that seeking advice from others is prohibited in both rated and casual correspondence games.
That said, I believe team-based play could be an engaging, enjoyable, and educational format. Playing collaboratively is fun, and offers a sense of camaraderie. Furthermore, such games could be fantastic learning opportunities. Weaker players would be privy to the thought process and strategies of stronger players during the discussions. Advocating for a particular strategy could also help cement the idea for an already experienced player. This kind of environment would foster skill development and a deeper appreciation of the game for all participants.
There is also precedent for team-based chess in the broader chess world, with notable examples like Kasparov vs. The World, Anand vs. The World, and the historic Westminster vs. Paris Chess Club game, which even led to the birth of the French Defense.
I wonder if there might be room for flexibility in this regard, or perhaps an opportunity for Lichess to explicitly support team games as a feature. It seems like a natural extension of the platform's capabilities and could foster even more community engagement.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this suggestion!
P.S. I've also posted this on the feedback forum, but I'm copying it here as I primarily need input from the Lichess leadership team, and I'm hoping it will be easier to get your attention here. Here's the link to the forum post: https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/playing-correspondence-as-a-team
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: