Correspondence chess is often described as the most thoughtful way to play. While over-the-board play tests your nerves, memory, and clock management, correspondence chess tests something else entirely — patience, accuracy, and the ability to plan deeply without time pressure.
In an era before powerful computers and databases, these games were the purest form of analysis. Moves were sent through the post, and weeks could pass before a reply. Today, many of these games are still referenced not just as historical curiosities but as examples of precise strategy and timeless planning.
Some of the greatest ideas in modern chess — sharp novelties, deep endgames, positional domination — were first introduced in correspondence play. Below are some of the most important games that shaped how we understand chess today. Article created with the support of: casinos not on Gamstop
1. Yakov Estrin vs Hans Berliner (1965): Strategy vs Calculation in the Two Knights
This game took place in the final of the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship and remains one of the most discussed correspondence games of the 20th century. Yakov Estrin was a leading authority on the Two Knights Defence, and he entered the game with confidence in his deep theoretical knowledge.
But Hans Berliner, representing the USA, came prepared with something bold. On move 11, he played the now-famous 11…Nf4, a move that was considered dubious at best at the time. It looked like a simple tactical blunder, sacrificing a knight for unclear compensation. But Berliner had analysed the position for weeks — possibly longer — and proved that the sacrifice was fully justified.
He launched a perfectly timed attack on the kingside, controlling open files, weakening Estrin’s defences step by step, and never allowing the initiative to shift. Every move had a purpose. Estrin, despite his expertise, couldn’t recover.
Why this game matters: It was one of the first times a correspondence player used long-term preparation to completely outplay a theoretical expert. The game challenged accepted theory and introduced new lines that are still referenced today.
2. Povilas Arlauskas vs Yakov Estrin (1971): The Slow Squeeze in the French
A few years after his famous loss to Berliner, Estrin found himself on the losing end again — this time against Lithuanian master Povilas Arlauskas in a quiet French Defence.
Unlike the flashy knight sacrifices of Berliner, Arlauskas chose a slow, methodical approach. He played the classical lines calmly, gradually building up pressure in the centre and on the queenside. What’s remarkable is that there were no fireworks in this game — just small positional gains, one after another.
Arlauskas dominated the dark squares, restricted Estrin’s counterplay, and eventually forced a collapse without ever needing a tactical blow. The victory was clean, logical, and based entirely on long-term planning.
Why it matters: It’s a perfect example of how slow, strategic pressure, when applied accurately and patiently, can break down even the most experienced opponents. For correspondence players, it’s a masterclass in how to win without rushing.
3. Juan Alvarez vs Wolfgang Letzelter (1994): Controlled Aggression
This modern masterpiece was played during the finals of a European correspondence event. White, played by Juan Alvarez, chose an aggressive line in the Sicilian Defence but didn’t rush into an all-out attack.
Instead, Alvarez used the extra time to build up, coordinating his pieces perfectly, restricting counterplay, and choosing the right moment to open lines. His play was surgical. No premature sacrifices. No careless threats. Just a steady, growing initiative that turned into a decisive attack.
What stands out most is the clarity of the attacking idea. It wasn’t based on one tactic or opening trap — it was based on long-term space control and exploiting imbalances in Letzelter’s position.
Why it matters: It teaches the power of restraint. Aggressive players often attack too soon. This game shows how strong play can come from waiting for the right moment, not creating one.
4. Vidrik Rause vs Aleksandar Matanovic (1950): A Pure Endgame Lesson
Endgames in correspondence chess are different. Without time pressure, players are forced to find the most accurate move, not just one that looks “good enough”. In this game, Estonian player Vidrik Rause took on Yugoslav grandmaster Aleksandar Matanovic and brought home a win through pure endgame understanding.
After a balanced middlegame, the players reached a rook and pawn ending that looked drawish. But Rause had a plan. He gradually advanced his pawns, improved his rook, and used his king actively. Every time Matanovic tried to simplify, Rause found a move that preserved winning chances.
After nearly 40 precise moves, Rause forced a breakthrough and queened a pawn. The level of control in the final phase was stunning.
Why it matters: Most players avoid endgames. This one shows why you shouldn’t. With time and skill, even the smallest edge can become a win. It’s a game worth studying move by move.
5. Friedrich Olafsson vs Karl Busemann (1954): The Psychology of Silence
Not every great game is about flashy tactics or beautiful combinations. Some are about subtle pressure, and in this case, psychological influence.
Olafsson sent a move in an objectively equal endgame. But with it, he included a note: “You probably know how this ends”. It was a small sentence, but it introduced doubt.
Busemann, reading too much into the note, decided to avoid what he assumed was a known theoretical line, even though it was the best option. Instead, he played a second-best move, trying to sidestep what he believed was a trap. Over time, the position deteriorated, and he lost.
Why it matters: Correspondence chess gives players time to think, but that doesn’t remove emotion. Doubt, intimidation, and second-guessing still happen, especially when you assume your opponent knows more than you.
What Modern Players Can Learn From These Games
Today’s chess world moves quickly. Rapid and blitz dominate. Analysis is done in seconds by engines. Most players don’t even look at their games after they’re finished.
That’s why these correspondence games remain so valuable. They’re reminders of a different way to play — not based on speed, but on understanding. Not on instinct, but on planning.
They show us how to:
- Think beyond immediate threats
- Build long-term plans that survive changing conditions
- Avoid rushing into tactics without preparation
- Respect endgames and quiet moves
- Understand when to wait, not just when to strike
Even in the age of engines, correspondence games still feel deeply human. And that’s what makes them so lasting.