Originally posted by ChessMomBTW, both Fischer and Spassky had Grandmasters with them as "seconds" who would help them analyze the games they were playing during adjournments. This is allowed in Grandmaster matches, but would be a violation of the rules of correspondence chess at RHP. Therefore, your example only shows that the rules are different, not that one is a "superior" test to the other.
Oh, yes, indeed they certainly are. As a matter of fact, not only are they not incompatible, but they go hand-in-hand in chess.
A level playing field is where both players have equal resources. And the *only* way to make sure that both players have equal resources is to make sure that they have *no* resources, which is why tournaments forbid the use of ...[text shortened]... books during game play is so "okay", why aren't you allowed to use them during tournaments?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLOL. Or go to a cycling site and tell them to get off their flipping bikes and walk as God intended! 🙄
Good. Maybe you should go visit a poker forum and tell them to change the rules of that game, since they are unethical and allow you to keep the money you win.
I think it's unethical to allow knights to jump over other pieces. I think knights should only be allowed to move if they can find a clear path to the final square.
What you say? That's not in the rules? Well I don't care. It's ethics.
No it's not. The rules specifically allow for database use in correspondance chess as they allow for knights to move through occupied squares in all forms of the game. Why should I not use something to my advantage when it says I can in the rules?
I've tried to hold off on commenting on you, ChessMom, as I admire your taking on chess for the purposes you describe.
But for someone who knows so little about chess, you seem to want to pontificate on what it "means" to play chess. I mean, come on, you had trouble understanging how a knight moves.
Perhaps you should do some more listening instead of telling others how "chess is played".
You are right in that "memorizing" is an important skill. What you don't seem to grasp is that books and databases are a skill as well. They don't "give you the answer" as you seem to think.
Corr Chess is a DIFFERENT kind of chess than OTB. OTB is all that "mano e mano" that you thought chess was. So is Corr. Chess. -- it's just "mano e mano" with books and databases.
Nonny
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think it's unethical to pit black versus white. What a racist game, especially when white is believed to have a theoretical advantage. Why should white get to go first everytime?
I think it's unethical to allow knights to jump over other pieces. I think knights should only be allowed to move if they can find a clear path to the final square.
What you say? That's not in the rules? Well I don't care. It's eth ...[text shortened]... not use something to my advantage when it says I can in the rules?
It sounds like somebody needs to invent a new chess variation: Ethical Chess.
Chess Mom can be the first Grandmaster...wait, we'll need to change that term too.
I am horrified at the shoddy treatment and personal attacks to which ChessMom was subjected over the past several hours.
She has been asking tough questions, demonstrating growth in her understanding, and carefully engaging others' comments from the beginning of this thread. ChessMom's response to the original post on this thread expressed her view that soliciting input "from any source other than 'your own brain', you are cheating." This led to a discussion of the rules regarding correspondence play and over-the-board play, and to clarification of the differences between databases and engines. At this point, ChessMom identified herself as a "purist". She reiterated her view, "if you get any kind of help, to me, that invalidates your whole game."
ChessMom shifted her position from calling database use "cheating" to a more qualified statement that it appears "unfair": "What if the other guy doesn't have as comprehensive a database as you do? What if you just happen to be better at looking things up in a database and utilizing the information you find? Then the chess game becomes nothing more than a test of 'who's better at looking stuff up', or 'who has the better database'." She finds this practice "reprehensible".
Several posters hammered in on the point that databases are within the rules for correspondence chess. Then ChessMom pointed out that rules do not answer the issues of ethics, Making something legal does not make it moral. She put this observation in the context of a view shared by many that society's morals seem to be deteriorating. She renewed her argument taking issue with my own admission that databases "supplement" my chess knowledge:
Wow. This just jumped out and smacked me in the face--that's *exactly* the point I'm making. Using books and databases SUPPLEMENTS the player's chess skill. So what happens if the Other Guy doesn't happen to be as good at utilizing "supplements"? He loses, not because his "chess skill" is lacking, but because he doesn't know how to utilize supplements.
ChessMom deserves a reasoned and respectful reply to her concerns, not personal attacks. Given that databases are permitted by the rules of correspondence chess, is this rule ethically defensible, or is it merely a practical recognition of something that cannot be prevented?
I believe the practice is ethical or I would desist.
It is true that sometimes part of the battle can hinge on who has more access to databases. But, in theory, we all have access to the same ones. For volume of games, nothing beats chessbase online. For only high quality of games, there is New in Chess online. Everyone with a web connection has access to these. Size is not the only issue. Some players spend many hours developing specialized opening databases (called books) and refining a repertoire. These hours are an exercise of chess skill to build tools for further training, and for correspondence play. If I have a better database than my opponent, it is because I have used my chess skill to build it. Still, there are those who lack access to books and databases. Kon Grivainis became World Correspondence Chess Federation Champion largely without access to the databases his opponents were using. He employed specific strategies and opening systems that were designed to thwart his opponents' database help. Still, he was not entirely without outside materials, especially knowledge and records of some of the previous games of his opponents. But none of this answers the issue of ethics.
The issue of ethics must address the game of chess itself. As games go, chess is almost the exception in its reliance on skill alone. There are no dice, no cards, no hidden pieces. Chess would seem a good game for a purist.
Chess skill is not innate, nor can it be defined in terms of a single dimension. Chess requires calculation and intuition, memorization of patterns and application of principles. The help a player can derive from databases is limited by his or her skill, but using database records also requires development of additional skills unneeded in over-the-board play. Chess is played many ways: one on one with no supplements, consultation games (multiple players arriving at consensus, or voting), human + computer teams against other human + computer (advanced chess--see http://www.chessbase.com/events/events.asp?pid=133), human vs. machine, and correspondence, among others. The game does not remain static, but changes and grows. How well a player does in any given format reflects how good a player is at that format; chess skill is not an absolute.
I doubt I have even begun to address ChessMom's sense of ethics, but I will keep trying. The use of databases remains a gray issue for many players and observers of chess. If we feel justified because the rules say we can, or because our opponents are doing it, then ChessMom is correct to allege that it reflects the moral deterioration of our society. If we can accept ChessMom's comments for the honest and thoughtful concern they are, perhaps we can explain why it doesn't feel like a moral breach.
Now, a few minor points:
ChessMom wrote, And if you need to rely on a database to give you a mating pattern, or to remind you how to do a bishop sacrifice or a Gambit, then--my whole point is--you shouldn't be playing chess, because IMHO you're not really "playing chess".
In my experience, you need to know the mating pattern in order to locate it in a database. However, there are books, such as How to Beat Your Dad at Chess that list these patterns. Knowing when such aids might be useful requires chess skill.
ChessMom wrote, Fischer and Spassky had a level playing field, didn't they? And they both exercised their chess skills. Didn't they?
No, they did not. The table was tilted heavily against Fischer. He took on the Soviet chess empire almost alone, and prevailed. The training methods, match preparation, and support during adjounments (in those days, teams of GMs would work together analyzing a position while the player slept) for Spassky were so far in excess of anything Fischer could muster, that he had to be much better than Spassky. The chess world since has almost entirely eliminated adjournments.
I havent read all the thread so if this has been said sorry. The best way to learn and not to cheat is join a club. I dont think anyone learns anything by cheating anyway. I can watch tennis players smack a ball around all day and still not be able to play tennis.
You'll probably get roasted in your first club games. You normally end up playing the club chairman or one of the team captains (often strong players) who will try to get a feel for your level of play. After that they will probably throw you into a 3rd team club game and see how you get on.
Some clubs are better than others at helping their members develop. If you dont have a club near you then I suggest you find someone online who might help. If you have money you can pay people to help you, if you dont then you'll have to befriend people :-)
I failed to address the ethics of databases because I've given it minimal thought. The rules are clear for correspondence chess, but many people--not only ChessMom--dislike the practice. For some it seems to violate the spirit of the competitive nature of the game. For others, perhaps, the quest for the best databases is an integral element in the contest. Such was certainly the case for one of my email opponents: his openings databases required more storage space than existed on my hard drive. He won both games, but I learned some things from him--in our conversations--about how he goes about constructing and organizing opening databases.
At another site where I play, and where there are active forums, one of the top players started a thread looking for help regarding SCID (a popular free database program).
In his post, he mentioned that he uses three primary databases: 1) games from the past five years; 2) games from the past fifteen years; and 3) all games. I am in a game against him right now, and it looks like I'm losing, where he played a novelty (a move not in my database) on move 24. Up to that point we were following a game played by two super-GMs ten years ago.
The information he posted, and his novelty both reinforce the point I've been making that use of chess databases is an aspect of chess skill. He is laboring to construct databases that help him identify fashions and trends among opening choices. What does he do with this information? Does he play the latest ideas? Does he look for abandoned lines that are still sound? Either of these strategies would be just that--plans for using available chess knowledge. Suppose you are following a game that resulted in a win for the color you have. Were the moves sound? You still need a lot of understanding to decide when and how far to follow a previously trodden path.
Re: Chessmom's messages. Go ahead, play a game, dive in. If you're concerned about your opponent using databases or books, arrange beforehand that you both won't. If you don't say anything, there's a chance your opponent will hit the books, so speak up. No harm in that. On the other hand, I've played plenty of games where my opponent didn't use anything other than their brain, and I used databases and books and he still beat the pants off me. Some players are just GOOD and no amount of "extra help" will avail. But these players were aware I might use a book or database. They knew the rules of correspondence chess. But they also knew their common sense and background knowledge would carry them through. Play a game and have fun! Losing a chess game is not a personal tragedy.
As mentioned earlier, not looking up openings during a game in progress tends to get impractical when you have lots of games on the go. You cannot choose which openings you can and cannot read because you are worried that you might stumble across a game in progress.
Say you have a player who does not have any chess skill whatsoever. This player does not have any tactics or strategy but has a vast opening database to consult. If he/she plays against a player who has no access to any database at all but is a player with years of experience, the player without the database will win hands down.
You will find that the player with the skill will quickly crush the opponent from the point in the game where he/she leaves the database. I have lost that way many times! 😕
Correspondance play tends to allow for players to get to a sound middle game (by consultation of opening databases). Otherwise one of them could blunder too early, ruining the game.