Originally posted by Dragon FireWormwood has already resolved the issue by citing the rules (terms of service), which clearly prohibit both engine use and tablebase use involving ongoing games.
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?
Using an engine to analyze positions which an ongoing game has not reached but may reach is cheating, period. If the intent is to analyze positions that may become relevant to the game, in order to get an advantage that relies on engine use, it's cheating. If the intent is merely to explore some abstract possibility, the engine analysis must wait until after the game is over, since the knowledge revealed, should the game in fact reach such a position, will at that point confer information (and possibly an advantage) about the actual position of an ongoing game, by means of engine analysis carried out during the game. In any case, without respect to intent, the terms of service clearly prohibit the use of engines to analyze positions or moves associated actually or hypothetically with an ongoing game.
Players should not be confused by Dragon Fire's reference to a consensus to the contrary. Any player who uses an engine to analyze the present position, or any hypothetical future position, of an ongoing game, is CHEATING.
Similarly, the use of tablebases during ongoing games, with respect to actual or possible future positions of any of those games, is also CHEATING.
Dragon Fire seems determined to undermine the integrity of the system by means of insidious arguments which attempt (without authority) to modify the terms of service. First it was unrated games during which he used engines ostensibly for tutorial purposes. Now he is claiming that engines may be used during rated ongoing games, to obtain engine-analytic continuations from positions which would be reached by those games if their openings follow book; additionally, he is proposing a similar breach of the terms of service with respect to tablebase use.
Note: players should NOT use engines or tablebases AT ALL during ongoing games with respect to those games, involving actual or hypothetical positions. Even in games which have, for example, already passed points where a position could have occurred (but didn't, and now can't), players MAY NOT use an engine during the games to explore such academic points, because in so doing they may receive information suggesting moves which are still possible (even though the position as a whole is no longer possible).
DON'T USE ENGINES OR TABLEBASES DURING ONGOING GAMES WITH RESPECT TO THOSE GAMES. IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH IT CONSTITUTES CHEATING.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou seem intent in misquoting me here.
Wormwood has already resolved the issue by citing the rules (terms of service), which clearly prohibit both engine use and tablebase use involving ongoing games.
Using an engine to analyze positions which an ongoing game has not reached but may reach is cheating, period. If the intent is to analyze positions that may become relevant to the game, in o nally, he is proposing a similar breach of the terms of service with respect to tablebase use.
I have never implied that the use of engines or tablebases for assistance in an ongoing game is anything but cheating and if I have I for one would love to know where. This is clearly and unambiguously in contravention of the TOS.
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. If it is then you could never analyse any position because any game could get to such a position before the first move has been made. Any game you have just started could in theory reach any hypothetical future position that you are analysing so to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion would imply that you could only ever use an engine to anaylse any chess position if you had absolutely no games on the go. Any thing else by your definition would be cheating.
Tablebases would imply the same thing. To use a tablebase to research an actual ending is unquestionably cheating but to use an engine to research a hypothetical ending that may never occur in any of your games cannot be cheating as any such ending could be reached before a move has been made.
The original question was an attempt to establish where the line should be drawn mainly because I felt I wanted to research some endings without falling foul of any rules. I would mention at this stage that I do not have a Tablebase and I have never used a Tablebase but it struck me that to use a Tablebase to explore a position that is given in an End Game Book might be a valuble tool.
I take exception to your statement that
"Dragon Fire seems determined to undermine the integrity of the system by means of insidious arguments which attempt (without authority) to modify the terms of service." I am attempting to do no such thing but rather I am wish to clarify what I considered to be a grey area.
You go on to say (quoting something from an earlier thread) "First it was unrated games during which he used engines ostensibly for tutorial purposes." Yes! Absolutely I used an engine during tutorials in a number of unrated games totally transparently and with the knowledge of the participants, not to make my moves but to assist in setting up practical tactical examples to facilitate learning and if I decide to go down the route of doing such tutorials again then I will do the same again. I don't know what the word "ostensibly" is doing in there as that is exactly what the games were for.
You then say "Now he is claiming that engines may be used during rated ongoing games, to obtain engine-analytic continuations from positions which would be reached by those games if their openings follow book I have said no such thing. I have never advocated using an engine in an existing ongoing game rated or otherwise
Apparently "additionally, he is proposing a similar breach of the terms of service with respect to tablebase use" I don't believe so. Use of a tablebase in an existing game is contary to the TOS. I do not and never have advocated doing this.
I find your tone offensive. Hopefully it is not intended to be that way .
If you re-read my original post you will see I asked a question, I did not propose any actions. I am clear in my own mind where to draw the line and there is a line to be drawn. Let me try and put it simply "if the use of an engine or tablebase can in any way impact upon your existing games other than in a totally theoretical manner then, in my opinion, the line has been crossed".
😀
Hi everyone, of course people can play by using a chessmaster program but I think that is useless for them to improve their ability. Even if they can get a very high score. It is not fun at all!
Of course, when we play with a help from a program or an expert or anyway, that is cheating.
FLYHEAD
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsBy coincidence the same question Dragon Fire is asking occurred to me a couple of days ago which is why I consider it to be a genuine question.
Wormwood has already resolved the issue by citing the rules (terms of service), which clearly prohibit both engine use and tablebase use involving ongoing games.
Using an engine to analyze positions which an ongoing game has not reached but may reach is cheating, period. If the intent is to analyze positions that may become relevant to the game, in o nally, he is proposing a similar breach of the terms of service with respect to tablebase use.
As it happens I've never used an engine to analyze a master game. No reason why - it's just something I haven't done. I'm playing a game using a repertoire book (the paper kind) as a guide for the early moves and to help study and learn the opening. The game is still in the early moves. A few complete illustrative games are included in the text and I decide to study two of these games to get a feel for the type of positions that may arise.
Then the idea to go through these illustrative games with infinite analysis running in the background occurs to me. But I felt uncomfortable with this because in my opinion the engine use was getting to close to my game so I postponed the idea for the time being and didn't trouble myself any further with the question. But it does seem like a reasonable and a genuine question.
On the one hand I am simply studying a master game with an engine running in the background on the other hand I am using an engine to study positions that are likely to occur in my game. You could say it doesn't matter because the position is say, five moves ahead so anything could occur. But then you could say that it does matter because it would be wrong to calculate 5 moves ahead and then use an engine to solve the position.
What if I play an OTB match tonight using the same opening and then go over the game with my opponent and end up looking a a position that is critical to my RHP game? Outside help? What if I then come home and study this OTB game with infinite analysis running? Engine use? What if I take the master games that continue on from the opening I'm playing and go through them with a coach?
I am not advocating or wishing to encourage any engine use in RHP games and I usually find the "Is this cheating" type of threads annoying. But I do believe in this case DF was asking a genuine question to seek the opinion of others about something he was considering. A perfectly reasonable thing to do in my opinion.
As for this statement Using an engine to analyze positions which an ongoing game has not reached but may reach is cheating, period. If you use an engine to analyze anything then how can you avoid this without knowing all the possible transpositions. My opponent plays 1.e4 - do no engine analysis on any game that starts with 1.e4? That effectively bans active players from using an engine for anything.
So now we realise there is a grey area and the rules do need some intelligent, reasonable and fair interpretation.
By coincidence the same question Dragon Fire is asking occurred to me a couple of days ago which is why I consider it to be a genuine question.
As it happens I've never used an engine to analyze a master game. No reason why - it's just something I haven't done. I'm playing a game using a repertoire book (the paper kind) as a guide for the early moves and to help study and learn the opening. The game is still in the early moves. A few complete illustrative games are included in the text and I decide to study two of these games to get a feel for the type of positions that may arise.
Then the idea to go through these illustrative games with infinite analysis running in the background occurs to me. But I felt uncomfortable with this because in my opinion the engine use was getting to close to my game so I postponed the idea for the time being and didn't trouble myself any further with the question. But it does seem like a reasonable and a genuine question.
On the one hand I am simply studying a master game with an engine running in the background on the other hand I am using an engine to study positions that are likely to occur in my game. You could say it doesn't matter because the position is say, five moves ahead so anything could occur. But then you could say that it does matter because it would be wrong to calculate 5 moves ahead and then use an engine to solve the position.
What if I play an OTB match tonight using the same opening and then go over the game with my opponent and end up looking a a position that is critical to my RHP game? Outside help? What if I then come home and study this OTB game with infinite analysis running? Engine use? What if I take the master games that continue on from the opening I'm playing and go through them with a coach?
I am not advocating or wishing to encourage any engine use in RHP games and I usually find the "Is this cheating" type of threads annoying. But I do believe in this case DF was asking a genuine question to seek the opinion of others about something he was considering. A perfectly reasonable thing to do in my opinion.
As for this statement Using an engine to analyze positions which an ongoing game has not reached but may reach is cheating, period. If you use an engine to analyze anything then how can you avoid this without knowing all the possible transpositions. My opponent plays 1.e4 - do no engine analysis on any game that starts with 1.e4? That effectively bans active players from using an engine for anything.
So now we realise there is a grey area and the rules do need some intelligent, reasonable and fair interpretation.
Personally I think it's straight forward enough to avoid any cheating but then I don't do much engine analysis anyway.
Say, that a member has two games in progress, each in endgame involving a couple of pawns and rooks, not exactly the same but very alike each other. He doesn't, of course, use any engine or table base to analyze them.
Then one of the games ended. Now this is not in progress, but the other is still in progress.
May he, or may he not, analyze the already finished game with an engine or a table base in order to learn something from it?
If he may, then he learns something about the other game too (which still is in progress), doesn't he?, because the two games are so alike?
Is this cheating or not?
I think you are clearly crossing the line when
1: the Engines or table-bases are deciding your move choice for you rather than using your own thinking to come up with moves.
2: When your motivation for choosing certain positions to analyse was influenced by one or more of your current games in progress.
The case for #1 is clear as day. The case for #2 is naturally a little more foggier, but if it concerns you, it's best to wait until that position can't be reached or your game is finished before you analyse it. I also don't really think it's that big of a deal. Unless you create a de facto table-base (chrystal clear unhunh), I don't really think using an engine to analyse a future theoretical position is all that useful anyways unless you truly understand the logic behind the moves. And if you understand the position and play it logically, then who's going to know if you previously did some analysis of it using an engine? But again, you should err on the side of caution. It is a slippery slope.
For the record, the only engine use I do is use Crafty or GNUChess to do a quick blunder check of my completed games. As one of my opponents profile reads, all my mistakes are of my own doing. 😉
Originally posted by bosintangI think your suggestion with points 1 and 2 works well. And although judging "motivation" is impossible to police it doesn't matter. Genuine cheats (if you'll excuse the expression) won't care about the legitimacy of what they do as they are intending to cheat anyway. Genuine players (as I beleive DF to be) will take care to avoid cheating.
I think you are clearly crossing the line when
1: the Engines or table-bases are deciding your move choice for you rather than using your own thinking to come up with moves.
2: When your motivation for choosing certain positions to analyse was influenced by one or more of your current games in progress.
The case for #1 is clear as day. The case ...[text shortened]... ted games. As one of my opponents profile reads, all my mistakes are of my own doing. 😉
As a tool to cheat without being caught I think analyzing possible continuations so close to your game position that your game feels the heat of the engine involves quite a bit of work and is not really in the spirit of cheating.
So we come full circle. Don't use an engine to help you with a game in progress. If you think it might help - then don't do it.
Thank you to the 3 preceeding posters who in 1 way or another have stated the difficulties exactly as I see them whereas Mark Atkins inflamatory and agressive post did nothing other than make me cross with his unfounded interpretation of my genuine concern not to cross the line.
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.
As it turns out despite having subsequently played, since doing this analysis, over 60 games where my position at move 4 turned up I have yet to play any where the position at move 12 recurs.
Please don't accuse me of cheating because I analysed a position 8 moves ahead in my current games because I was not. There was an intention to learn and improve from my current games by using engine analysis and consulting with strong chess players at my club. This is perfectly normal and reasonable analysis and preparation. If it is not then I will give up chess and go back to tiddlywinks..
Now lets say I have a simple game here that has a K,B&N vs K. Now I know I can win that and if in doubt I have plenty of (legitimate) books that tell me how so I read my books then go along to my local club and play dozens of K,B&N vs K endings vs club players until I can do it blindfolded. Am I getting assistance? Am I cheating? The game I am now practicing against other club members is very similar to one I am playing here, much closer in fact to any of the aforementioned hypothetical examples but it is such a basic ending that practicing it would hardly be an unreasonable thing to do (or would it?)? Please note I am not advocating doing anything Mark Adkins but merely posing a legitimate question for discussion.
[Originally posted by Dragon FireThat's all that was needed. I don't know know how anyone could say that situation was cheating. You analysed a completed game, and you saved your analysis for later. What's the big deal?
Once the game was over...
I don't even understand how chess engines could help you take advantage of the idea that "White stands better due to his decisive control of the black squares". By nature, engines are tactical rather than positional beasts, and if you don't have deeper chess understanding than watching the engine make moves, it's not going to be helpful and won't be a benefit to you anyways. (That's not directed at you DF, I'm talking about people who are blindly running engines in positions hoping to get something out of it.)
Originally posted by bosintangAnd one more thing...GMs have the most sophisticated software and teams of masters working for them in analysing positions and yet we still see them playing novelties even within the first 10 moves sometimes. Even if you reach that position in a future game, there's no way you could have analysed all the possible variations. Your previous engine analysis will only be as good to you as your understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of them and how to take advantage of this.
That's all that was needed. I don't know know how anyone could say that situation was cheating. You analysed a completed game, and you saved your analysis for later. What's the big deal?
I don't even understand how chess engines could help you take advantage of the idea that "White stands better due to his decisive control of the black squares". By na ople who are blindly running engines in positions hoping to get something out of it.)
Originally posted by bosintangOf course thats the case. At best they help identify where you went wrong, avoid the mistake next time and maybe assist in the analysis of an extra move or 2.
And one more thing...GMs have the most sophisticated software and teams of masters working for them in analysing positions and yet we still see them playing novelties even within the first 10 moves sometimes. Even if you reach that position in a future game, there's no way you could have analysed all the possible variations. Your previous engine analysis ...[text shortened]... s your understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of them and how to take advantage of this.
My experience of adjournments OTB is that you go home, spend hours or even days analysing the position with other club members and possibly an engine and prepare a stunning continuation only to find within a few moves you have left all your prepared lines.
People here who think you are "cheating" by analysing a position 10 moves away from where you are at present have no real concept of the complexities of a game of chess. If I could forecast accurately where any of my games would be in 5 moves time let alone 10 I would be a GM and I certainly would not require a computer to help me.
I'm not misrepresenting anyone, Dragon Fire. In your very first post in this thread, you talked about "using an engine to analyse not only your past games but positions you may reach in existing games". So you WERE talking about ongoing games. As for advocacy, in the same message you characterized this as "legitimate and permissible research".
Now that the false charge of misrepresentation has been dismissed, I need only concern myself with the erroneous and disappointing claims made by several parties, arguing that such engine use is not cheating.
First, what constitutes "in book"? Some opening monographs are multi-volume and analyze not merely a few main lines but obscure ones as well. Any opening move covered by such books could be considered "in book". Furthermore, the definition of "in book" cannot be limited to a single opening monograph, but only to the totality of all literature (printed and electronic) dealing with the subject of chess openings. Even the information contained in opening databases themselves could be considered to constitute "book". It's very common for players, noting that a game has finally diverged from all known database games (especially those involving master level games) to say that the play has "left book".
So, in reality, it would be very difficult to deviate from book in the opening, particularly in RHP games where players have access to opening databases and other materials; and in general, the higher up the ratings ladder one goes, the less likely deviations from book are.
Given the fact that "in book" opening moves are the ones which, over the years, have stood the test of time in both play and analysis, it is precisely when openings leave book that a player will have difficulty constructing a strong continuation. Therefore, it is precisely at this point that a strong chess engine might prove useful -- a fact that Dragon Fire has apparently taken note of.
Given these facts, reserving engine analysis for only those cases where games leave book is scarcely a form of self-deprivation or restrictive use.
Now consider a player whose repertoire is (generally) limited to a few pet openings. He may well have a number of ongoing RHP games all involving the same general opening. (He might anyway, if he plays enough games simultaneously.)
Assume that he has just finished a game, in which he had trouble at a particular point in a pet opening. In using a strong chess engine to analyze that point, he clearly has the intent of gaining some advantage which he is unable to obtain on his own. However, given the circumstances, it is not at all improbable that he also has ongoing games for which analysis of that point might prove useful. Shall we assume that said player is unaware of this fact? If so, he is sadly naive, and that hardly seems credible for a player with a great deal of experience. So, we can expect him to be aware of the possible uses of his engine analysis, with respect to ongoing games. Shall we, then, assume that he will not make use of such information, should it prove applicable to games which are ongoing at the time the analysis is made? Or will he, like the Walrus and the Carpenter, cry crocodile tears of regret while eating up as many oysters as he can? Even if his intent is snow-white (poor, poor, misunderstood player!), he can scarcely edit his own memory to eliminate the information, at the very time it proves advantageous in an ongoing game.
Next, we consider the question of how many moves ahead the information might be applicable in ongoing games. In his first message of this thread, Dragon Fire suggested "about a dozen". Since then, he has used figures of "ten" and "eight". This shrinking figure reminds me of the adage about the camel's nose under the tent. And why not? Are these figures anything except arbitrary? If 12, why not 10 or 8? If 8, why not 6 or 4 or 2? Shall poor Dragon Fire be deprived of the chance to analyze a tough position in a game he just finished, merely because it MAY soon bear upon an ongoing game? Shall we make him swear his boy-scout oath to name a definite figure, and go this far, but no farther, and here his proud waves stop? Can we draw him with an hook, or tie his tongue with a cord?
He has already indicated, elsewhere in this thread, in connection with the subject of tablebase use, that: "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."
Note the implication here: if complete tablebases were available, it "would not be considered unreasonable" to use them from the starting position. Is it really so surprising that I strenuously disagree with any breach of the terms of service regarding engine and tablebase use, or that I regard "discussions" such as these as an insidious progression whose purpose seems to be to legitimize and expand the use of engines and tablebases in ongoing games? That such legitimization is de facto, rather than de jure -- after all, neither Dragon Fire nor the other players have the authority to change the terms of service -- is irrelevant, since he is proposing to legitimize by means of interpretation of the law, rather than by modification of its letter. That nobody has authorized him to modify its meaning through proposed interpretations hasn't stopped him. Is he really a poor, lost waif, looking for guidance on this issue? Or is that merely a camouflage for attempts to influence what players consider acceptable, thereby putting pressure on the administrators to accept a coup d'etat?
The bottom line is, don't use an engine to analyze a position if it may become relevant to an ongoing game. If you do, it's cheating, according to the terms of service -- Dragon Fire's facile chatter about "common sense" notwithstanding. If you want to use an engine, and you have ongoing games which might be influenced by this, then wait until those games are finished. You may even have to take a break before proceeding with additional games, to perform your engine analysis.