The Chess Mind

Readers of this blog (and its predecessor) are familiar with my occasional mention of various sorts of unsportsmanlike behavior in chess, generally in the context of internet blitz and bullet. One typical example is for a player in a lost position to not resign or even keep playing until mate, but to simply let his time run out. (My standard reply is in kind: I turn off the autoflag feature. If my opponent wants to waste his time, I'll let him.) I imagine almost all my readers are familiar with that maneuver, but who'da thunk that sort of thing would go on in the stately realm of correspondence chess?

The sad but true answer: Anyone with a realistic view of human nature. Thanks to tonight's Chess Today (CT-1813), I've been apprised that it's a problem in correspondence chess, too, where it's known as the "Dead Man's Defense". Here's the original definition:

"The Dead Man Defense". The idea is that the pace of the game is so abnormally slow that you are hoping your opponent (the victim) dies in the interim. It could be the only way to save the game. Because cc players are generally older, on average, the chance of this actually happening is enhanced by using this defense.

Not only is it used when you are losing the game (or drawing a previously won position) it is also a legal way to be contrary, for no reason at all, other than for the trouble/anxiety it causes your opponent...

Charming!

If you're interested in reading more on this, see the Correspondence Chess Message Board, and then do a search for "DMD" or "Dead Man's Defense" - there are various, unfortunately non-consecutive threads discussing it.

One might think that correspondence players were a more elevated breed, a mannerly collection of chess Platonists searching for truth.

Apparently not.