Only Chess
07 Jan 08
07 Jan 08
We already know that researching opening books and databases is not cheating.
Some time ago we had a discussion about using an engine to analayse not only your past games but positions you may reach in existing games if they followed a book line to a point where the book ended (maybe a dozen unforced moves from any game you are playing at present with many possible divergences) and decided that this was also probably legitimate and permissible research (although maybe most often superfluous and irrelevant as the positions would be rarely reached).
Now we also know that using endgame books and databases (as past played games and the analysis thereof) is also acceptable but that to use an endgame tablebase during a game is most certainly not acceptable.
Clearly using an endgame tablebase to research totally theoretical positions is OK but now for the dilemma, suppose you have a position with, say 8-10 pieces on the board plus Kings. Clearly you want to exchange off into the best possible end game (won or drawn depending in what you hope too achieve) so you load up a tablebase and research theorectical positions with say 4 or 5 pieces plus Kings none of which could possibly be forced from your existing position to find the sort of position that you need to reach to achieve your objective. Having found it you would obviously seek to direct your current game in an appropriate direction - you may of course fail but if you do succeed then clearly you would then refer to your past research although, of course, you should not now load up the tablebase.
Is this legitimate research or does it infringe the rules?
07 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by chessisvanityThere is of course a reason for my question.
When i get to 1800+ i will say thats cheating.
Without going into the details I know from Yuri Averbakhs book on Bishop Endings that the following position is a draw with either side to move.
With black to move
1. ... Kh8;
2. Ke6 (say as Kf6 is stalemate) .. Kg7
(and you can soon see that the white King cannot approach due to stalemate).
With white to move the idea is the same. The black king just shuttles back and forth between h8 and g7,
K, B and P vs K and P can also be drawn (see below).
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireWould it be possible to draw such a B & P ending if the Bishop was the opposite colour. I suspect not (but I don't know for sure).
There is of course a reason for my question.
Without going into the details I know from Yuri Averbakhs book on Bishop Endings that the following position is a draw with either side to move.
[fen]8/6kB/6P1/5K2/8/8/8/8[/fen]
[b]With black to move
1. ... Kh8;
2. Ke6 (say as Kf6 is stalemate) .. Kg7
(and you can soon see that the white King c ...[text shortened]... uttles back and forth between h8 and g7,
K, B and P vs K and P can also be drawn (see below).[/b]
What I do know (from my same Averbakh book) is that the following position is a draw even though the B is the right colour and covers the Queening square.
Again it does not matter which side is to move.
Black to move
1. ... Ke8;
2. Kd6 (obviously we need to attack and win that black pawn) .. Kf8;
3. Ke6 .. Kg8;
4. Ke7+ .. Kh8;
5. Bc6 .. Kg8;
and white cannot approach any closer.
White to move
1. Bf7 .. Ke7;
2. Kc6 .. Kf8;
3. Kd5 .. Ke7;
4. Ke5 .. Kf8;
5. Be6 .. Ke7;
6. Kf5 .. Kf8;
and once again white cannot make progress.
These and similar positions may be the only ones to hold but I want to analyse such positions thoroughly and it strikes me that a tablebase would be the most useful tool for such analysis.
What has attracted my interest in this is a game that is far away from either of these positions and may never come anywhere close as there are 3 times as many pieces on the board, including queens but exploring and trying to hold this sort of B ending certainly seems to be of interest.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireI was also thinking about this recently and decided that while I wasn't clear whether this was technically against the rules I wouldn't do it. (I suppose I must have missed the original discussion).
... Some time ago we had a discussion about using an engine to analayse not only your past games but positions you may reach in existing games if they followed a book line to a point where the book ended (maybe a dozen unforced moves from any game you are playing at present with many possible divergences) and decided that this was also probably legitimate and permissible research ....
Similarly, I wouldn't use an endgame base in the way you describe (although I haven't got one of those anyway).
Again, I'm not sure if it's technically against the letter of the rules it certainly seems to me to be against their spirit, i.e. using a assistanec for a game in progress even if you're not actually at the specific position yet.
Just my thoughts and not a statement of what I think the rules are (or should be).
07 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireHi DF,
There is of course a reason for my question.
Without going into the details I know from Yuri Averbakhs book on Bishop Endings that the following position is a draw with either side to move.
...
[b]With black to move
1. ... Kh8;
2. Ke6 (say as Kf6 is stalemate) .. Kg7
(and you can soon see that the white King cannot approach due to stalemate). ...[text shortened]... uttles back and forth between h8 and g7,
K, B and P vs K and P can also be drawn (see below).[/b]
I'm not sure the point of the above post in relation to your questions. Are you trying to get to this position? [edit] You just posted a following message that explained your point. I still hold my opinion below. [/edit]
Either way, I would say that it is cheating. Although you might use it as one would use an endgame book, it blurs the line a little too much.
If I'm understanding you right, here is a problem I see with saying that you can use tablebases for potential future positions in your game. Lets say you have 3 pawns, a knight and bishop, and I have the same except only 2 pawns. No you try to instigate trade of all the knights and bishops. Would you say it is legal for me to lookup the position after all the trades in a tablebase and see if I can draw, and then base my decision as to whether or not to allow the trade based on what the tablebase said?
I know that your intentions were more innocent than this, but if you allow conditional use of tablebases, it blurs the line too much.
I'm of a mind that all of us are just trying to get better, so the use of tablebases should be reserved to the post-analysis.
[second edit for spelling]
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireThis is the key point for me. A person acting in the way you described is seeking to influence the course of a game using computer assistance outside that which is clearly accepted as within the rules.
[b...Having found it you would obviously seek to direct your current game in an appropriate direction ....[/b]
Hence ... avoid (IMHO).
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon Fire3b) (b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
We already know that researching opening books and databases is not cheating.
Some time ago we had a discussion about using an engine to analayse not only your past games but positions you may reach in existing games if they followed a book line to a point where the book ended (maybe a dozen unforced moves from any game you are playing at present with ...[text shortened]... uld not now load up the tablebase.
Is this legitimate research or does it infringe the rules?
I think the explicit prohibition of consulting tbs during play is pretty clear.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwoodthis is curious.
... databases consisting of previously played games between human players ....
I think the explicit prohibition of consulting tbs during play is pretty clear.
ChessBase databases contains games played by computers. Does that make their use illegal?
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwoodIn principle I agree but where you are using a tablebase to assist in the analysis of a position from your endgame book (a legitimate tool which has the positions I quoted above in) then clearly if that had no bearing on any current game it is perfectly acceptable.
3b) (b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted [b]during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
I think the explicit ...[text shortened]... en base my decision as to whether or not to allow the trade based on what the tablebase said? [/b]
The dividing line is what is unclear to me. After all when we have 32 pieces on the board any possible ending could be reached but sitting down and analysing them would not be considered unreasonable.
Now I have no doubt in my mind that the example quoted by AProdigy is a breach of the TOS as that is far too close to what is going on but somewhere between the 2 extremes the line gets crossed. The question is where do you cross that line? To say avoid tablebases (and engines) at all costs is not realistic as it prevents legitimate research and analysis of your games.
The game that perked my interest in this cannot be forced into these sort of positions anyway so any research in this area would be unlikely to have an impact on that game. I say unlikely rather than impossible because the game of chess is a dynamic ever changing situation and the game could yet go down lines unanticipated by me. It is, however, unless my opponent blunders (unlikely) probably lost for me although it caused me to pull my books out and read up on these sort of endings and the minimal amount of detail in my books then made me wonder about the possibility of soucing a tablebase and using that to research the ideas further.
By the time that happens the game in question will be over but the question remains for all future games.
07 Jan 08
Dragon Fire,
I think it's at least one toe over the line, if not several. If I understand the scenario you describe, you would be seeking confirmation that a particular strategy would be valid during the very game in which you hoped to employ it. I don't think the fact that the position could not be forced is really relevant.
Just my .02