Cheating

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
As in; not a fair fight.
eg, in a boxing match, if one of the boxers was wearing a headguard he would have an unfair advantage over his opponent who wasn't wearing one.
Although it could be allowed and perfectly legal, he would still have an advantage over the other.
And if the headguard was invisible that definately would make it unfair [in my opinion] to the other boxer [player]
Fair enough if it's known in advance.

If the rules allowed people to wear headgear and one choose not to, he wouldn't have any bitch that the other guy was being "unfair".

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the rules allowed people to wear headgear and one choose not to, he wouldn't have any bitch that the other guy was being "unfair".

I agree, if it's known in advance.[disagree if you like, it's only my opinion]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
As in; not a fair fight.
eg, in a boxing match, if one of the boxers was wearing a headguard he would have an unfair advantage over his opponent who wasn't wearing one.
Although it could be allowed and perfectly legal, he would still have an advantage over the other.
And if the headguard was invisible that definately would make it unfair [in my opinion] to the other boxer [player]
Fair enough if it's known in advance.

If invisible headguards are allowed (specifically, as in "All headguards are allowed that conform with certain guidelines, this includes invisible ones) in boxing and give the boxer an advantage then if a boxer wanted to have the best chance of winning he would wear one. If he didn't (because he believed he didn't need one or thought it would be more fun or whatever) and lost he has no right to complain.

To use the polevaulter analogy, if you don't want to use the pole then you can't complain that the rest of the people can vault higher than you can.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I agree, if it's known in advance.[disagree if you like, it's only my opinion]

I assume everybody on RHP will take advantage of the castling rule though you don't have to castle.

I assume everybody on RHP will take advantage of the rule that allows pawns to move two spaces on the first move though they don't have to.

I assume everybody on RHP will choose to use the en passant rule to capture one of my pawns though they don't have to.

I assume everybody is using a database on RHP although they don't have to.

If they want to handicap themselves by never castling, never moving their pawns two spaces, never capturing en passant or never using databases, that's on them. It ain't "unfair" and I feel no need to announce in advance that I'm going to play by the rules of correspondence chess on a correspondence chess site.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
To use the polevaulter analogy, if you don't want to use the pole then you can't complain that the rest of the people can vault higher than you can.

Which is a good reason why they have two separate categories of jumping over a bar type sports.
I'm not complaining but I think it would be handy if it was made absolutely clear beforehand if someone was NOT using databases. [impossible, I know]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Which is a good reason why they have two separate categories of jumping over a bar type sports.
I'm not complaining but I think it would be handy if it was made absolutely clear beforehand if someone was NOT using databases. [impossible, I know]

You don't get it. In Xanthos' analogy this is a pole vaulting competition, but people like you are showing up choosing not to use poles and complaining that those who do are being "unfair" by not telling them they're going to use a pole. That's idiotic.

Originally posted by ambience

- The word 'cheat' has caused blood to boil.

My blood has not boiled, and I've expressed no anger, as I've not felt any.

Rather, as others--XanthosNZ, No1, RahimK,--I've been part of the effort to turn back the tide of ignorance. Indeed, BlueEyedRook has accepted much of what we've noted as constructive criticism. Although some of us have used harsh language in our critique of his flawed survey, he has not responded in a way that suggests perception of personal attacks. Where's the kettle of blood?

If you want to see blood boil, check in on the spirituality forums when some ignoramus calls ID science. There, angry, venomous words get typed in the effort to dispel horrifying lies and distortions perpetrated by dangerous religious radicals.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't get it. In Xanthos' analogy this is a pole vaulting competition, but people like you are showing up choosing not to use poles and complaining that those who do are being "unfair" by not telling them they're going to use a pole. That's idiotic.

I already said "Im not complaining"
Is noone else allowed a different opinion to you on this?
I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.

There are plenty of non-database-using players here who would like to know in advance. Not to know what is allowed, or possible, but the facts.
What do you have against people knowing? You obviously don't object to people knowing you rely on databases.
Why not a tick box, as suggested in another thread in the site ideas forum?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't get it. In Xanthos' analogy this is a pole vaulting competition, but people like you are showing up choosing not to use poles and complaining that those who do are being "unfair" by not telling them they're going to use a pole. That's idiotic.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
As in; not a fair fight.
eg, in a boxing match nfair [in my opinion] to the other boxer [player]
Fair enough if it's known in advance.

Well, the difficulty with the analogy is that in a pole vaulting competition you can see that your opponents are using poles to help them, whereas it isn't immeadiately apparent whether your correspondence chess opponent is or not.

But I really have to dissagree with the idea that having an advantage is unfair. If I go a rook up, and that is definitely an advantage, I'm hardly going to be expected to give it up because it's unfair that I have more than my opponent. Each player has a set of resources available to them that are the same. If you allow your opponent an advantage by not using them then you really can't complain about it. If you want to play a game it really is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the rules first. The site publishes them, and the Terms of Service come up when you register (I think - it was over a year ago) and they will definitely highlight 3b.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I already said [b]"Im not complaining"
Is noone else allowed a different opinion to you on this?
I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.

There are plenty of non-database-using players here who would like to know in advance. Not to know what is allowed, or possible, but the facts.
What do you have against peo ...[text shortened]... ly on databases.
Why not a tick box, as suggested in another thread in the site ideas forum?[/b]

Tough. I'd like to know if my opponent was going to play the Sicilian or Alekhine's or the Center Counter, too, but I have no right to expect them to tell me such things in advance. If you want to put it in your challenges go ahead but they're under no obligation to tell you jack.

I "use" databases; I don't "rely" on them. All my games here are primarily preparation for OTB play and databases are useful in gaining play experience with specific lines. I wouldn't use a "tic box" for the reasons I've given; books and databases are part of the rules of correspondence chess it's idiotic to make a tic box to say you're playing by the rules.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Which is a good reason why they have two separate categories of jumping over a bar type sports.

And there are two types of chess. Correspondance [polevault] and Classical/Rapid/Blitz/etc. [high jump]. We play correspondance here, if you don't want to use a database or play against people who are using them go play the right type of chess.

EDIT: Also, if you aren't complaining why the hell are you still trying to argue?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
EDIT: Also, if you aren't complaining why the hell are you still trying to argue?

FYI
Complain - Expressing pain or dissatisfaction of resentment
Argue - Present reasons and arguments
Different meanings.

Idiotic - Insanely irresponsible; Completely devoid of wisdom or good sense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wouldn't use a "tic box" for the reasons I've given; books and databases are part of the rules of correspondence chess it's idiotic to make a tic box to say you're playing by the rules.

Aside from anything else it would be pretty hard to enforce a no books/database rule. It's not straightforward to prove someone is cheating by using an engine, in the case of books someone could simply claim to know the most of the main lines from memory, which would be pretty hard to disprove without unreasonable amounts of effort, because it's perfectly plausible.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Aside from anything else it would be pretty hard to enforce a no books/database rule. It's not straightforward to prove someone is cheating by using an engine, in the case of books someone could simply claim to know the most of the main lines from memory, which would be pretty hard to disprove without unreasonable amounts of effort, because it's perfectly plausible.

That may be true, but that is not the reason they are allowed.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I already said [b]"Im not complaining"
Is noone else allowed a different opinion to you on this?
I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.

There are plenty of non-database-using players here who would like to know in advance. Not to know what is allowed, or possible, but the facts.
What do you have against peo ...[text shortened]... ly on databases.
Why not a tick box, as suggested in another thread in the site ideas forum?[/b]

Why can't you just assume that everyone uses a database?

I use a database, books when I can and if my opponent doesn't want to then fine. It doesn't bother me one bit.