One reason for Najdorf popularety att ICCF is that Najdrof Be3 is a standard thematical event that starts several times each year and in the more recent events the winner reaches final events vs other winners. However I am not shure is thematical game reaches databases? Dragon tematical events also starts from time to time with semifinals and finals but it has only started once during the past years where I started to play at ICCF.

Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 08:41:34:


I built my own database from all correspondence. And at 30 years of correspondence to have achieved 1628 games... that's 2 games a month.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/18/19 at 14:06:48:



Definitely. I suppose that's the tough thing is the transpositions.

trw wrote on 08/18/19 at 05:16:27:

Oh absolutely, in terms of correspondence popularity absolutely the Najdorf is far, far more deserving of its own section than the Dragon/Accelerated Dragon complex. I'm curious about your statistics though, in the database I've compiled of ICCF games since 2017 white scores just under 60%, which is clearly inferior to the Najdorf and Sveshnikov, but not exactly a disaster either.
The reason I brought up ICCF games was solely to help Chris find theoretically relevant games. Even if this source isn't even nearly as fruitful as for the Najdorf,I think there should be more than enough to get 12 games a month there.

Stigma wrote on 08/18/19 at 02:26:46:


You do but its free to join and have an account... you don't have to play. Although they offer a free event every year (jubilee I think is the name). Also, at this point, there are so many people downloading the games and posting them elsewhere. I think Chessbase for example now includes ICCF games into Mega.

Jack Hughes wrote on 08/18/19 at 01:07:56:

I know this has been discussed before, but (as of 2019) do you need to actually be an ICCF player to get access to regular updates of these archives?

I've never had much interest in playing CC, but following top CC games for theory would still be useful.

trw wrote on 08/17/19 at 23:05:32:

Just looking at the ICCF archives from 2017 onwards, Michel Lecroq (~2600) has played the Dragon in seven games with black, while Stephen Ham (2583) and German Fabian Benz (2554) have both played it more than once. Of course it's not anywhere near as popular as the Berlin or the Najdorf, but it's still probably a bit more popular than OTB.
At any rate, the reason I brought up ICCF games was that they don't need to be played at the highest levels of correspondence chess, since the opening and subsequent play of even 2100 players will be based on serious engine analysis. With that in mind, I would have thought it would be possible to easily get 12 high quality games a month even for a section as niche as the Dragon using ICCF games alone.

Hi all, hope you don't mind a non-subscriber on only his second post sharing his thoughts. I have, however, been a lurker on the forums and the site for over a year, and I would make the following arguments.
- The division of the King Pawn section into Spanish and Non-Spanish makes a great deal of sense. The Italian alone I think is popular enough at top level to justify this - the April update was titled "More popular than the Spanish?" after all. Combined with the Petroff, which is also very trendy, and the occasional outing for the Four Knights, Scotch etc. should be more than enough material.
- I also wouldn't mind splitting the Queen's Gambit section. My suggestion for doing this would to divide it into variations that usually arise from what Grischuk has called the 'normal position' after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 (e.g. Bf4 QGD, Ragozin, Vienna, Semi-Tarrasch) and those that usually through another move order (e.g. QGD Exchange, Catalan, Slav, QGA). Based on a quick search in my database of 2019 games this would mean a little bit more work for the latter, but not too much, and definitely a better deal for them than whoever is doing the QG section currently has. It would also be possible to tinker this division a bit, for instance by making the 'normal position' be the one arising after 3.Nf3 d5 and thereby including the Catalan.
- If the Flank section is to be divided, I would suggest one section for The Reversed Sicilian and Symmetrical English and one section for the rest. The Reverse Sicilian and Symmetrical English can quite naturally go together in my view, since they are independent lines Flank lines that arise when black tries to stop white from playing d2-d4. By contrast, the other mainlines in the English/Reti complex by contrast arise when white deliberately omits d2-d4. This makes, in my view, for a natural division between the two. Again, a rudimentary database search suggests that this would be a reasonably even division.
- Fully support the mergers of the KID with the Benoni and the Caro-Kann with the French.
- I like the idea of a separate Grunfeld section, given its popularity in elite chess. Although I am aware by now that I have just advocated the creation of a third separate section.
- I have always thought that the Dragon section owes its existence to the cult-like devotion of its followers at club level (whose numbers have traditionally been much greater than one would expect based its popularity amongst the elite). In the silicon age I feel that its harder in general to keep a cult following, and that correspondingly it doesn't have the legion of advocates that it used to. This is very much just a personal assessment of the 'vibe' however, so I'd be interested in hearing whether others share this impression. The closest I can think of to evidence I could provide here would be the existence of magazines specifically for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit that Gambit has referred to in the BDG section, which I find rather difficult to imagine today.
- If authors are struggling to find games, then I would request that the author take a closer look at games on the ICCF. That would give them a lot of high quality content to choose from. (It would also be of greater assistance to subscribers, since it's easier to keep up to date with elite level chess than correspondence chess, and if section authors could specialise in doing this then they would be offering some really high quality content).
- I absolutely love Jan's Opening Clinic, and really like the idea of a section that plays a similar role. I think the best format for this would be to have a section in the forums, or a thread in each section, where subscribers can post their questions, and free members can post analysis in relation to it. I think this could really help rejuvenate the forums, as the guarantee of getting feedback from an expert would really incentivise posters to put out their best analysis.