user-1: In Lichess, any form of external help (e.g. engines) is forbidden, even in correspondence chess. However, there is an option to open a separate board where one can make unlimited scratch moves.
I would regard using a separate board as cheating because building
variations in the player's mind is in the spirit of chess and is subject to failures. For example, overlooking a piece that refutes an attack could be eliminated by using a separate board, so while using it will undoubtedly hinder a player's personal improvement, not using it will place him in disadvantage over another player who does.
Assuming external help is forbidden, is it ethical to use a scratch board in correspondence chess? Am I wrong that it goes against the spirit of chess?

user19028: In its FAQ, lichess explicitly states their rules for what they call "correspondence chess":

Is correspondence different from normal chess?
On Lichess, the main difference in rules for correspondence chess is that an opening book is allowed. The use of engines is still prohibited and will result in being flagged for engine assistance. Although ICCF allows engine use in correspondence, Lichess does not.

I found no official mention of manual analysis on a separate board (except on forum threads), but the lichess user interface explicitly and deliberately provides easy access to both an opening database and an on-line analysis board (with engine features disabled). Thus, it is safe to assume that this is considered "part of the game". It would be nonsensical to allow an on-line analysis board, but disallow an off-line "physical" analysis board.
This is consistent with the correspondence chess rules and the user interface of other online chess platforms, e.g. gameknot (which explicitly allows move databases but disallows end-game tables) and chess.com (same).
Obviously, you are free to play by stricter rules if your opponent agrees.

user11144: Your question is a bit paradox: analyzing is the whole point of correspondence chess (and since strong engines exist, it is sort of a zombie). It is very unfortunate (and not your fault) that Lichess called it that way in the first place: e.g. ICCF explicitely allows engines. Better would be calling it "very long time chess". Consequently, you may analyze per hand. Of course, you again must distinguish from, how shall I call it, postal chess - a friendly game between strangers just for the sake that it's possible (today much faster and easier, of course), and you tacitly agree not to analyze.

-1: <p>In Lichess, any form of external help (e.g. engines) is forbidden, even in correspondence chess. However, there is an option to open a separate board where one can make unlimited scratch moves.</p>
<p>I would regard using a separate board as cheating because building
variations in the player's mind is in the spirit of chess and is subject to failures. For example, overlooking a piece that refutes an attack could be eliminated by using a separate board, so while using it will undoubtedly hinder a player's personal improvement, not using it will place him in disadvantage over another player who does.</p>
<p>Assuming external help is forbidden, is it ethical to use a scratch board in correspondence chess? Am I wrong that it goes against the spirit of chess?</p>
 19028: <p>In <a href="https://lichess.org/faq#correspondence" rel="noreferrer">its FAQ</a>, lichess explicitly states their rules for what they call &quot;correspondence chess&quot;:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is correspondence different from normal chess?</p>
<p>On Lichess, the main difference in rules for correspondence chess is that an opening book is allowed. The use of engines is still prohibited and will result in being flagged for engine assistance. Although ICCF allows engine use in correspondence, Lichess does not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I found no official mention of manual analysis on a separate board (except on forum threads), but the lichess user interface explicitly and deliberately provides easy access to both an opening database and an on-line analysis board (with engine features disabled). Thus, it is safe to assume that this is considered &quot;part of the game&quot;. It would be nonsensical to allow an on-line analysis board, but disallow an off-line &quot;physical&quot; analysis board.</p>
<p>This is consistent with the correspondence chess rules and the user interface of other online chess platforms, e.g. gameknot (which <a href="https://gameknot.com/help-answer.pl?question=21" rel="noreferrer">explicitly allows</a> move databases but disallows end-game tables) and chess.com (<a href="https://www.chess.com/terms/correspondence-chess" rel="noreferrer">same</a>).</p>
<p>Obviously, you are free to play by stricter rules if your opponent agrees.</p>
 11144: <p>Your question is a bit paradox: analyzing is the whole point of correspondence chess (and since strong engines exist, it is sort of a zombie). It is very unfortunate (and not your fault) that Lichess called it that way in the first place: e.g. ICCF explicitely allows engines. Better would be calling it &quot;very long time chess&quot;. Consequently, you may analyze per hand. Of course, you again must distinguish from, how shall I call it, postal chess - a friendly game between strangers just for the sake that it's possible (today much faster and easier, of course), and you tacitly agree not to analyze.</p>
