Only Chess
07 Jan 08
11 Jan 08
Yikes what a thread this turned into. For whatever its worth here's my handy dandy guide to interpreting TOS rule 3b.
"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. "
1. Read that first sentence, twice.
2. Then go to your player profile and scroll on down to where it shows how many games you have in progress.
3. If the number you see after "In Progress" is not zero, then do not refer to a chess engine, a chess computer, or be assisted by a third party.
4. Enjoy the complete lack of a gray area.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mephisto2It could be, but there is no reason why it SHOULD be under the terms of service: (1) watching public games, whether online or at a club, is not the same thing as soliciting advice; (2) databases of master games probably provide, to the extent able, a much more reliable source of information about the positions of such games; (3) in the event that the positions displayed do not correspond to database games, it is entirely up to the judgment of the viewer as to whether or not a particular move, seen in a public game, should be emulated. The fact that, in an amateur game, a move or line is successful or unsuccessful, is scarcely conclusive evidence of the merits of the move, especially when judged by a third amateur who (by premise) has no idea what to do, because he is trying to get ideas from other players' games.
Yes, and you're making it worse.
As an example, I recommend you to never join a thematic opening tournament. Each ongoing game could be considered as third party input for several other games.
11 Jan 08
I raised this question quite some time ago when I started using the Traxler extensively.
I studied the opening for, probably hundreds if not a thousand or so hours using Fritz.
Each of my games got plenty of engine assisted analysis as soon as they were finished. Using the suggested improvements in future games was not cheating...
Now more on topic...
Would studying the opening before hand be cheating in that I am using an engine in the hopes of it improving my future play? Absolutely not.
Would it be wrong to continue my study of the opening if I had a game in progress in the line? I sure hope not! I almost always have a traxler game in progress and I'm constantly studying the traxler anyways.
However! It would be wrong to study the exact position I was in at that time...
My conclusion... if you are using endgame tablebases for the purpose of choosing individual moves, you are cheating. If you are using the same tablebase for the purpose of increasing your endgame knowlege... you are wasting your time BUT you are completely within the TOS.
If in doubt, ask Russ 🙂
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyThis is the position that strikes me as being most within the letter and spirit of the TOS, and it leaves no room for (mis)interpretation or the best of intentions going astray and leading to the worst outcome. The only downside is that by following this you are also preventing yourself from using engine assistance to post-mortem analyze your finished games, even if your current games aren't even remotely similar.
Yikes what a thread this turned into. For whatever its worth here's my handy dandy guide to interpreting TOS rule 3b.
"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 ...[text shortened]... ss computer, or be assisted by a third party.
4. Enjoy the complete lack of a gray area.
11 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2Again, your restriction is not required by the terms of service. Clearly, there is no way to know whether, in any OTB game, one or both players received information, originating with engines, and conveyed by means of sign, radio, or some other means. The terms of service don't say that you have to know whether other players' finished games reflect cheating on their part, because that is impossible to determine.
If that limitation is to be applied strictly, then you cannot follow lines previously played in recent correspondence chess either (e.g. the world championship). Despite the fact that the players are human, there is to my knowledge no rule that prevents them from using engines during their games (in fact the WC explained how he does use them).
I don't d by moderators, but not sticking the head in the sand as I feel is currently being done.
Personally, I'm not sure whether looking at finished database games involving an engine player, in order to evaluate one's own game position, constitutes consulting an engine or not in the sense stated in the terms of service. However, it's no inconvenience to avoid them, since they constitute only a tiny fraction of games in any of the large games databases. If I'm really curious to know what ZAP22 did in a particular position, I can always look it up after my game is over.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThere is nothing in the terms of service prohibiting anyone from using database games 'played by human players' who have used prior engine analysis to prepare lines of play, novelties, etc. for OTB games, just as there is nothing in the terms of service prohibiting any RHP players from using prior engine analysis themselves to prepare for play -- provided the engine analysis is not carried out at the time a game to which it applies, or could apply, is ongoing.
I often follow lines in the Morra played by Mladen Zelic. I suspect that he almost certainly uses Fritz or some such program to analyse various tough black defences in this gambit.
If I'm following a specialist player's prep that often extends well into the middlegame in very sharp & forcing lines (which also closely matches engine moves) then the ...[text shortened]... ove 18 as it is all covered in Langrock's Morra book quite probably aided by engine analysis.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsMy point was that although I don't have Fritz, my moves in Game 3886585 could match-up 100% for all I know - but this is based on someone else's analysis. I suppose the only way around this would be if the Mod had a copy of Langrock's book!
There is nothing in the terms of service prohibiting anyone from using database games 'played by human players' who have used prior engine analysis to prepare lines of play, novelties, etc. for OTB games, just as there is nothing in the terms of service prohibiting any RHP players from using prior engine analysis themselves to prepare for play -- provide ...[text shortened]... nalysis is not carried out at the time a game to which it applies, or could apply, is ongoing.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by MahoutWell, let's say that a game begins 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. 3.Bb5 Is it OK to analyze this position using an engine, while playing this game? Won't the engine give you all kinds of ideas about possible plans for both sides -- all kinds of positional and tactical information that you might not have had prior to using the engine?
A game begins 1.e4...so should we not analyze with an engine any game that begins 1.e4
What about using an engine to evaluate other Ruy games further down the line? Might a player not see that and say, oh, look at that, I didn't even realize the strategic importance of this square or file or rank or diagonal, or this pawn formation. I'll try to steer my current game into this if at all possible, because it really looks great. Is that OK?
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI think you've answered your own question. If I were playing someone rated our level and came across moves like yours in the opening of that game, I'd be pretty suspicious, and you can't gainsay this because apparently you yourself have come to the same opinion. Your opponent, not knowing anything other than the game moves, might refer the game to the administrators, for examination.
My point was that although I don't have Fritz, my moves in Game 3886585 could match-up 100% for all I know - but this is based on someone else's analysis. I suppose the only way around this would be if the Mod had a copy of Langrock's book!
They would likely find that your moves past move 18 did not indicate engine use, but they might (I'm no expert -- just suspicious like you) find that the opening looked engine assisted. At that point, you might be asked about the game, and you could *cite* the professional OTB game in question, explaining that you followed his line through move 18. This, plus the general absence of suspicious move sequences in your other games, would be good reason to acquit you (within the framework of premises we are using to discuss this issue).
12 Jan 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyI think I did mention earlier in this thread that what you say was possibly the only way to strictly interpret this section of the TOS but it is also a totally unreasonable and impractical interpretation as I am absolutely certain that all reasonably strong players here and all those who want to improve will analyse some if not all of their past games and that most will use engine analysis to help them get it right.
Yikes what a thread this turned into. For whatever its worth here's my handy dandy guide to interpreting TOS rule 3b.
"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 ...[text shortened]... ss computer, or be assisted by a third party.
4. Enjoy the complete lack of a gray area.
I do not believe the TOS are intended to stop you using an engine to analyse past games but are intended as a proscription on use in your current game and that is something completely different.
I am convinced that if you analyse a past game (and I am sure many people will set their engine to do an analysis of the whole game and without even looking at it, for the time being at any rate, store it and the analysis in their DB) whilst you have a game in progress and then use that analysis in a current game you have probably over stepped the mark. So I have come to the conclusion it is not really the distance removed from your current position that matters but how you use the data.
Of course you can use this data in any future game although unfortunately you cannot unlearn what you have just learnt and even if you do not deliberately set out to do so you may inadvertantly use this analysis in your current game so the best thing to do is avoid that line in all your current games.
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsWell, let's say that a game begins 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. 3.Bb5 Is it OK to analyze this position using an engine, while playing this game?
Well, let's say that a game begins 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. 3.Bb5 Is it OK to analyze this position using an engine, while playing this game? Won't the engine give you all kinds of ideas about possible plans for both sides -- all kinds of positional and tactical information that you might not have had prior to using the engine?
What about using an engi er my current game into this if at all possible, because it really looks great. Is that OK?
No and it's a good question because if you were playing black in this position and you ran through your previously played game using infinite analysis then you would effectively be gaining engine assistance for your move 3 and most likely getting direct help for the next few moves. This has to be against the rules. But would it be the same if you were looking at something of interest that had occurred at move 40 whilst the in progress game was at move 3...could that really specifically affect the outcome beyond the expected improvement from general study. Would that matter? Would it be cheating? If a reasonable answer to this is "no" then the question is at what point does it start to matter....or how far away from a position must you be?
Personally I think that a player who doesn't wish to cheat can avoid it quite easily and that if there were amendments to the rules to cover this area then these amendments would be too complex for a newcomer. Even a guideline...such as "no closer than 12 ply" would be confusing and difficult adhere to.
12 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsMy how you ramble on about a supposed "loophole" when I am not and never have suggested using such analysis in your current game but rather have asked the simple question that, to be safe and not infringe the TOS how far removed from a current game is reasonable.
Yes, but a human being doesn't need to remember it. Here's a little scenario to demonstrate the potential ramifications of the loophole proposed by Dragon Fire:
Let's say I play a particular line of the Sicilian as Black. I might have twenty or more such games in play at any given time, since 1.e4 is common and many games beginning 1.e4 c5 will perm ely to find attractive: but with a hidden agenda that they would not approve of if known.
You are proposing something that very clearly is a breach and you attribute resources to me that would do the CIA proud. I wouldn't give it to MI5 as they will probably lose the 3 million data disks with the analysis on.
The flaw in your logic is that there is a perfectly legal way to do the sort of reseach you suggest even in the way you suggest. I identify that I am going to play player A in the next round of a tournament so I go through his games and identify his favorite openings. Now I set my banks of super computers running Rybka (rated circa 3000) on to the task and I generate 3 million possible continuations down the lines I know my opponent likes. I do this all before the game even starts.
When it starts I use my analysis all totally within the TOS. If I wanted to indulge in such skullduggery I would not ask the question what is reasonable and what is not I would just do it. If I did use an engine to play my games I would have a high match up over many games and I would be on my way out. As you seem to have it in for me why don't you analyse all my past games (if you aren't at it already) and see what sort of match you come up with.
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsGame 3886585
I think you've answered your own question. If I were playing someone rated our level and came across moves like yours in the opening of that game, I'd be pretty suspicious, and you can't gainsay this because apparently you yourself have come to the same opinion. Your opponent, not knowing anything other than the game moves, might refer the game to the reason to acquit you (within the framework of premises we are using to discuss this issue).
It's 11.Bxd5!? & the subsequent combination that I would never have seen without Langrock's analysis.
I'd guess that around 25-50% of the analysis in the Modern Morra Gambit is published for the first time & Langrock uses stem-games to show how improvements can be made. There is no game on chesslive.de in that line on move 11.
I recently quoted another book I own in a different thread; The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor by Thomas Johansson. Like the Morra book this also contains plenty of the author's original analysis (engine based, no doubt) in a highly sharp, tactical opening.
If anything this is even more refined as it's a blatant repertoire book for each line, meant for Johansson's personal use & published later. It even has certain lines marked "learn by heart!"
Surely you see what I'm getting at?
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI would certainly hope I wouldn't hang!
... If I were playing someone rated our level and came across moves like yours in the opening of that game, I'd be pretty suspicious... Your opponent, not knowing anything other than the game moves, might refer the game to the administrators, for examination...
At that point, you might be asked about the game, and you could *cite* the professional OTB game in question, explaining that you followed his line through move 18...
The Modern Morra Gambit - Hannes Langrock
Chapter 3, p.80-82
An early ...d6 and ...Nf6
(p.80)
"The first variation we investigate arises after 1.e4...c5, 2.d4...cxd4, 3.c3...dxc3, 4.Nxc3...d6, 5.Bc4...Nf6
6.e5! gives such a strong initiative that I am recommending only this move...
(p.81)
O. Lorenz - A. Winter
1.e4...c5, 2.d4...cxd4, 3.c3...dxc3, 4.Nxc3...d6, 5.Bc4...Nf6, 6.e5!
...
6...Ng4, 7.e6...Ne5, 8.exf7+...Nxf7, 9.Bxf7+?! This can be dangerous, but isn't the strongest way to handle the position.
Correct is 9.Nf3!...e6:...
B) 10.0-0...
B3) 10...d5 (P.Roberts-C. Njotea, Dublin 1993
11.Bxd5!...exd5, 12.Re1+...Be7, 13.Nxd5...Nc6, 14.Bg5 (Black has no satisfactory defence...
"
I actually decided on 14.Bg5 as it attacks the pinned Be7 a third time & also skewers the Q. Langrock suggested 14.Ng5 which made less sense to me.
But even so, I think the point is easily made. You don't have to run an engine in ongoing games if you have a decent repertoire book & can win a won game.