Only Chess
27 Dec 05
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookWell then they are ignorant. It really is this simple; the rules say databases and books can be used; so you are not cheating by using them. The rules say engines cannot be used; so you are cheating if you use them. It really is that simple.
I don't disagree with your assessment of what is cheating, but I do think there is clearly a debate. So far people are all over the place regarding this survey.
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by Freddie2006I agree, Freddie, but my hypothetical was assuming there are no rules on the issue. For example, you just randomly meet someone in a chat room (a non-chess room!) and start playing a correspondence game -- no board even, just e-mailing moves back and forth to each other. What "unspoken rules" apply? In other words, is there any universal consensus on what behavior is allowed or not allowed? Is there such behavior that is "of course" illegal... without needing to say it?
[b]It really is this simple; the rules say databases and books can be used; so you are not cheating by using them.
Many say that my survey is futile because how can something be cheating if there is no clear cut rules? But that's the issue I want to explore: Is there such behavior that is just plain wrong -- in other words ,you don't need a written rule to condemn it.
I ultimately think the survey is flawed... I created it, I can admit it. 🙂 But I think it is already showing the diversity of opinions.
For example, one of the questions is whether it is cheating to purposely forgo making a move as long as possible in the hope your opponent will become bored or frustrated and resign the game? I personally think this is "cheating." Many (at least according to my survey) agree. However, many don't (the vote is about 50/50). I assume this is because there technically no rules against it (at least none I am aware of).
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookIf you are playing under correspondance conditions unless stated otherwise I would assume that correspondance rules apply. Therefore, books and databases yes, engines no. What if during the game you wish to play an OTB tournament and want to do some study on an opening? The same opening you are playing in the email game?
I agree, Freddie, but my hypothetical was assuming there are no rules on the issue. For example, you just randomly meet someone in a chat room (a non-chess room!) and start playing a correspondence game -- no board even, just e-mailing moves back and forth to each other. What "unspoken rules" apply? In other words, is there any universal consensus on ...[text shortened]... me this is because there technically no rules against it (at least none I am aware of).
Also, you said it yourself, there is no rule about delaying your move so it can't be cheating.
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookThis is called dragging the game,surely not cheating,as long as the dragging player is moving within agreed time controls 😞
For example, one of the questions is whether it is cheating to purposely forgo making a move as long as possible in the hope your opponent will become bored or frustrated and resign the game? I personally think this is "cheating." Many (at least according to my survey) agree.
28 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookWrong. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to use their allotted time as they see fit, especially in correspondence chess games, which are supposed to take a long time to finish. At worst, it is poor sportsmanship; calling it 'cheating' is a bad choice of words. If you don't want your opponent to be able to stop and think for a week, then play with a time control of 1 move per day!
For example, one of the questions is whether it is cheating to purposely forgo making a move as long as possible in the hope your opponent will become bored or frustrated and resign the game? I personally think this is "cheating."
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookYou might have been better phrasing your question:
I agree, Freddie, but my hypothetical was assuming there are no rules on the issue. For example, you just randomly meet someone in a chat room (a non-chess room!) and start playing a correspondence game -- no board even, just e-mailing moves back and forth to each other. What "unspoken rules" apply? In other words, is there any universal consensus on ...[text shortened]... me this is because there technically no rules against it (at least none I am aware of).
If you could change the rules of correspondence chess to ban databases and/or books, would you do so? Why?
To avoid the trivial (though true) responses you have had.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by leestaticWhat would be the issue? My database contains every game from the Computer Chess Match Tournament (2001) for example. Should I exclude them from it just because they were engine games rather than humans? In the unlikely event that I follow such a game long enough that it is noticed I can cite the game I followed as evidence that I wasn't using an engine myself to make the moves.
So what if the database has engine V engine games in it?
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZUmm., I remember the site game moderators saying that it's your responsibility to avoid using these lines in another thread. My database is similar and I simply look at the game list and use human names I recognise as authorities on what's a good move.
What would be the issue? My database contains every game from the Computer Chess Match Tournament (2001) for example. Should I exclude them from it just because they were engine games rather than humans? In the unlikely event that I follow such a game long enough that it is noticed I can cite the game I followed as evidence that I wasn't using an engine myself to make the moves.
As to the general point, It's cheating if you hadn't agreed it in the first place. The difficulty with engine assisted chess is that a user would start by using the engine to check for blunders or to help in complicated tactical positions, but gradually end up using the engine to find moves, until eventually everyone would be wasting electricity and bandwidth getting their engines to play each other ...
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookIt is still simple. If you meet someone in a chat room and start playing chess, the rules are what the pair agree to. No more, no less. Obviously if one player is playing regular chess and the other is playing give-away it is an unusual game, but there is no cheating. It is only relevant to the people playing (like most ethics are). If normal chess rules are assumed, moving your rook diagonally is cheating. Using a chess book would depend on what assumptions were being made by the players.
I agree, Freddie, but my hypothetical was assuming there are no rules on the issue. For example, you just randomly meet someone in a chat room (a non-chess room!) and start playing a correspondence game -- no board even, just e-mailing moves back and forth to each other. What "unspoken rules" apply? In other words, is there any universal consensus on ...[text shortened]... me this is because there technically no rules against it (at least none I am aware of).
If you play in a structured situation, like RHP, RHP sets the rules and violating these rules is cheating.... If you are not violating the rules you aren't cheating. The example of just continuing to move without accepting a draw offer (like perpetual check) is poor sportsmanship but not cheating. Using perpetual check to obtain a draw is very, very legal. GMs do it all the time. Stalemate is legal. GMs do it all the time. Seating your opponent so his eyes are in the sun, as Ruy Lopez was accused of doing, is also legal.