Only Chess
07 Jan 08
16 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scandiumMaybe we all take ourselves too seriously here. It's not as if we're playing for megabucks or anything. Also simply resigning a game in such circumstances may not be what one's opponent wants, who may be more interested in playing an interesting game than whatever RHP rating points he might gain. There could also be effects on other players if it was a tournament game.
You misunderstand. Either that or I misunderstood you. What I read was that if you were preparing a line to play OTB, you would use engine assistance to do so even if you had an ongoing game on RHP with the same line. I apologize if I misunderstood you. If I didn't misunderstand you, its not a matter of any influence the RHP or prior engine analysis would h ay within the TOS here would be to resign the RHP game prior to beginning the engine analysis.
If the circumstances ever arose, I think I would try to avoid using any knowledge I'd gained though the OTB preparation. Or maybe it would be better to tell one's opponent exactly what the score is. It's unlikely to affect me personally, since I've stopped playing OTB for the time being. However, I am interested in opening analysis and do sometimes use engines, especially for chaotic tactical variations. So again I suppose there's a theoretical possibility of a rule conflict.
I think your point about engine use is somewhat misguided. I myself don't actually use them that much for specific preparation, but it is wellknown that most of the top GMs use them extensively to prepare. One presumes they know what they're doing, though of course Kramnik once famously came a cropper against Leko's Marshall through overreliance on engine analysis.
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireYes, but there's a difference when we're talking about the 4th move in a wellknown opening.
I find it interesting that you were analysing a line only 3 moves removed from a GIP yet your GIP never went down that line. It is much closer than the 8 moves I mentioned in an earlier post and just goes to show how rapidly the game of chess changes in a few moves.
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumYou seem to forget that many of the games take a very long time to conclude. (I've had games last nearly two years.)
Its not the study element that's prohibited, its the engine use. I don't think it necessary to study chess with an engine, in fact I think that a very poor substitute for the many alternatives available that do not violate the TOS. And its not likely that these situations will 'just happen' to arrive, no matter how active you are. Its a matter of a active c ...[text shortened]... tim of circumstance who has no other alternatives but to either break the TOS or quit RHP.
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sepia TintOne could argue that part of being a strong player is depth of preparation and knowledge.
And this was bound to become an issue as soon as Engines have reached beyond (average) human strength.
I doubt that any analysis in sources of reference less than 10 years old and regarded as legitimate by those taking a "puritan" stance will be free of engine assisted analysis. No chess author is going to risk putting out a book on an opening without ...[text shortened]... hat because they will lose too many games to those who would refer to "legitimate" material.
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by Northern LadExactly, and the RHP moderators will have to be working on the premise that much of current GM theory will have an element that is engine based. I think the next nuance is when the strong correspondence player "finds" improvements on known book lines. . .
One could argue that part of being a strong player is depth of preparation and knowledge.
16 Jan 08
1 edit
Earlier in this thread I elaborated the circumstances under which I personally thought engine analysis of a past game would be within the spirit and letter of the TOS. If you go back a few pages and read them you'll see that they are hardly "puritan".
Its when a position being analyzed overlaps a position in a current game, is very similar to one, or the player could use the engine assisted analysis to either derive some new insight into his current game or have it aid him in his evaluation of it that I feel is breaking the TOS.
The use of any engine analysis in an opening book is a straw man. RHP explicity permits, without limits or any particular parameters, the use of opening books. And if you look through an opening book you don't find reams of computer analysis, you find instead theory with a reference to the game between human players that it is found in. And the books are written by IMs and GMs who, though they may proof the work with an engine before submission, hardly rely upon it.
Its interesting that the longer this thread goes on the more excuses people find to justify engine use, and the broader the "acceptable" circumstances under which they feel justified in doing so become.
What puzzles me is that there are other CC sites that have no such prohibition on engine use, and those who feel obliged (however they rationalize it) to use them can play there without having to deal in these "shades" of grey, or in some cases, out and out flaunt the TOS because of their supposedly special circumstances. Yet they come here instead, agree to the TOS, and then either break it or attempt to undermine it.
Well, whatever. As I said before, regardless of my rating my rating points are my own that I and alone earned. I know now to be a little more skeptical when I look at someone else's rating here, and until demonstrated otherwise I'll be more inclined to assume it to be a computer assisted rating, and should their games appear suspicious they get reported and the admins can sort it out.
Edit: one thing to add is that I'm not singling anyone out with this post, nor making any accusations. In fact its no single post here that led me to write the above, but rather my own sense of where the discussion seems to be going. Please keep that in mind before anyone assumes this is directed toward them personally as I don't have an asbestos suit handy, nor the desire to have to put one on when i visit the chess forum.
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sepia TintHowever, this is an irrelevant argument which unnecessarily complicates the issue, because even without reference to published works, there is nothing in the terms of service which prevent a player from analyzing a finished RHP game with Fritz, writing down Fritz's suggested variation at a given point or points in the game, and then using these notes the next time a new RHP game reaches a position which either matches or is sufficiently similar to make the notes relevant.
I doubt that any analysis in sources of reference less than 10 years old and regarded as legitimate by those taking a "puritan" stance will be free of engine assisted analysis. No chess author is going to risk putting out a book on an opening without engine checking it for fear that Fritz et al. makes him/her look silly.
But note the term "new game".
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI am pleased we agree for once.
However, this is an irrelevant argument which unnecessarily complicates the issue, because even without reference to published works, there is nothing in the terms of service which prevent a player from analyzing a finished RHP game with Fritz, writing down Fritz's suggested variation at a given point or points in the game, and then using these notes the ...[text shortened]... hes or is sufficiently similar to make the notes relevant.
But note the term "new game".
*****************
Overall we seem to be forgetting one very important issue. The players who do this sort of research are genuine chess players of the sort who play OTB and who are in reality the least likely to resort to "cheating".
Such players can all tell you that the likelihood of a position they are currently researching coming up in one of their current games is extremely small and all of these players will make their best possible efforts to avoid a conflict. The opening (or ending) they are researching may come up in a subsequent game (obviously that is what they prepare for).
No one need worry about playing these people, they are not using engine assistance in their current games and their engine match up rates are likely to be lower than many other players not posting here.
In fact those that want to abuse the system don't even ask the question or contribute to the debate - they simply go ahead and do it. For them there are no shades of grey, as far as they are concerned they will use engines until they are caught and caught they will be.
I doubt there is any real difference between the use of engines to assist in preparation between Gatecrasher, Wormwood, Mephisto 2, Northern Lad and myself except that I imagine that those players who are better than me actually do even more research and preparation. I believe the others use a fair dollop of common sense in deciding whether this analysis is reasonable and fair and ensure that none of their current games are influenced by it.
In the remote chance that it was, the influence would extend to no more than 1 or 2 moves out of 100s and have no impact on the results of any games they were playing.
17 Jan 08
5 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireI think this thread is worth keeping alive in light of the recent banning of ih8sens for, from what we know of the circumstances, a practice that has been touched upon at least a couple times and I quote this post as one of those examples.
Once the game was over I decided I needed to work out exactly what I had done wrong and whether I should ever follow this line again and if so how I should have played after move 12. I discussed this game here, in the (private) forums and at my chess club and I loaded it up on Fritz and comprehensively analysed the options after move 12. I stored all my vocating doing anything Mark Adkins but merely posing a legitimate question for discussion.[/b]
DF you've stated in various posts:
"If you analyse an opening line of a game that you intend going down sometime in the future using an engine beyond the point in a book where it ends with a vague sort of booklike statement like "white stands better" before you get to that position and at a point where you may never get to such a position in any of your current games then that is not cheating in my opinion."
.........
"But we live in a democracy here (or at least I do) and I believe in the right of people to have differing opinions and respect them for that so he is entitled to his whether I agree with him or not.
Let me give you a very practical example. I lost Game 2285088 after following a book line which ended after blacks 12th move with the statement "White stands better due to his decisive control of the black squares". I then proceeded to get myself totally slaughtered.
Once the game was over I decided I needed to work out exactly what I had done wrong and whether I should ever follow this line again and if so how I should have played after move 12. I discussed this game here, in the (private) forums and at my chess club and I loaded it up on Fritz and comprehensively analysed the options after move 12. I stored all my analysis in a database so if that position ever comes up again I will be ready to play it or know where I should avoid it.
Now at that time the Morra Gambit was my favoured response to 1. e5 c5 so I had dozens of games at or approaching move 4 in the game I was analysing which is only 8 moves away.
Q1. Could any of games have followed moves going down the line I was analysing? A. Potentially Yes!
Q2. If they had gone down that line would I have used my prepared analysis? A. Definately Yes!
Q3. If I had used that analysis would I have been cheating? A (According to Mark Adkins)Yes but (According to most people [I hope] and common sense in my opinion no as this was legitimate analysis of a completed game and other than by improving my knowledge generally only of theorectical benefit in current games yet I had dozens of games only 8 moves away from this position. "
Its worth pointing out, first of all, that no matter where you live this site is not a democracy. And therefore consensus in a public forum is meaningless. It is fortunate, therefore, that you never got the chance to use your engine assisted research (your Question 2), since as you admit, you would have absolutely used it. And you might then have found yourself among the ranks of ih8sens and the others who've been kicked to the curb for cheating.
As it stands now the point is moot, other than to demonstrate that one shouldn't put too much stock in the apparent consensus of the community, and that the failure of the site admins to speak out on a given subject should not be taken as tacit approval for a controversial reinterpretation of the TOS. Instead they will simply act, and their chosen action for violations of 3(b) is banning.
The banning of ih8sens for, apparently, doing just such the type of research as this and then using it in his games should put this puppy to bed. I've argued here and elsewhere why in CC there is no difference, in effect, between doing this research and storing it in a database for possible use months before using it, or simply firing Fritz up at the time and doing the engine analysis on the spot. The engine isn't going to give a different answer no matter when you do it, nor will the game score reflect the date the engine analysis was done on.
17 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by scandiumOriginally posted by scandium
I think this thread is worth keeping alive in light of the recent banning of ih8sens for, from what we know of the circumstances, a practice that has been touched upon at least a couple times and I quote this post as one of those examples.
DF you've stated in various posts:
"If you analyse an opening line of a game that you intend going down sometime ou do it, nor will the game score reflect the date the engine analysis was done on.
I think this thread is worth keeping alive in light of the recent banning of ih8sens for, from what we know of the circumstances, a practice that has been touched upon at least a couple times and I quote this post as one of those examples.
Its worth pointing out, first of all, that no matter where you live this site is not a democracy. And therefore consensus in a public forum is meaningless. It is fortunate, therefore, that you never got the chance to use your engine assisted research (your Question 2), since as you admit, you would have absolutely used it. And you might then have found yourself among the ranks of ih8sens and the others who've been kicked to the curb for cheating.
I agree with you (again). However, the reality, as I found, is that such analysis / preparation is actually rarely used. If its' use appears frequently it would indicate more than post mortum analysis or legitimate preparation but would indicate the engine is being fired up in the game and that is something completely different.
As it stands now the point is moot, other than to demonstrate that one shouldn't put too much stock in the apparent consensus of the community, and that the failure of the site admins to speak out on a given subject should not be taken as tacit approval for a controversial reinterpretation of the TOS. Instead they will simply act, and their chosen action for violations of 3(b) is banning.
Again I agree. My initial posts were not intended to determine how close to the wind can I sail but rather how far away must I be for my analysis not to overstep the mark?
The banning of ih8sens for, apparently, doing just such the type of research as this and then using it in his games should put this puppy to bed. I've argued here and elsewhere why in CC there is no difference, in effect, between doing this research and storing it in a database for possible use months before using it, or simply firing Fritz up at the time and doing the engine analysis on the spot. The engine isn't going to give a different answer no matter when you do it, nor will the game score reflect the date the engine analysis was done on.
There is a difference but broadly I again agree with you. However, provided you do this correctly, legitimate reseach will have little impact on your overall engine match up and will only affect the odd game (out of 100s) as you would rarely go down the researched lines. If it affects a lot of games with a high match up you are not doing research, you are using an engine.
17 Jan 08
3 edits
I've no particular comment to make about ih8sens as a player, because I don't think I ever played him on RHP. However, I did cross swords with him in this forum on the issue of the Traxler Counter Gambit. (He was a fervent aficionado, myself a sceptic.) I remember him saying that he had consulted some book on the Traxler (written by some Danish player I think) that was based on 2000 hours of 'intelligent' engine analysis of the opening. (I had a quick look at an online review, and it seemed pretty reasonable.) I know he liked to play this opening a lot, given the chance. I personally would have no problem in his or anyone else making use of this analysis, since it's out there in the public domain for anyone to use, though maybe this is another grey area? (Interestingly, the high-powered silicon number-crunchers came to pretty much the same conclusion as established 'human' assessments of the various Traxler lines.)
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sepia Tintthat's pre-game analysis, and thus not in conflict with the TOS.
And this was bound to become an issue as soon as Engines have reached beyond (average) human strength.
I doubt that any analysis in sources of reference less than 10 years old and regarded as legitimate by those taking a "puritan" stance will be free of engine assisted analysis. No chess author is going to risk putting out a book on an opening without ...[text shortened]... hat because they will lose too many games to those who would refer to "legitimate" material.