Originally posted by Mark AdkinsWell I had in mind to post something more about the day DF generously hosted a meetup between players from our respective clubs who were also on RHP, but I'll cut a long story short. Lets just say that from isidious to miching mallecho via allusions to satanic connections the Dragon Fire of your imagination is very different to the person I've met in real life....and this is not to mention the numerous positive connections he has here in cyberspace.
So, vigorous debate has brought out an important nuance. That is well argued.
Now the only question remaining is why Dragon Fire engaged in this elaborate piece of miching mallecho (if such it was). 😀
None of this is proof in itself of course, but in my imagination he simply posted a question about something that occurred to him. I would also expect him to have been quite surprised to find himself defending his reasons for posting the question.
So I genuinely hope this statement will be sufficient to lay to rest the ghost of your suspicions. If it is not then I may well be reduced to posting emoticons.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsActually Mark, I think Dragon Fire's reason for asking the question has been clearly stated several times. Unlike some others posting to this thread I've had no previous interaction with DF at all, but I've seen nothing here to suggest the nefarious intent you keep hinting at. What motivates you to wield your excellent prose to demean him in such a personal way is the real mystery.
Now the only question remaining is why Dragon Fire engaged in this elaborate piece of miching mallecho (if such it was). 😀
Originally posted by scandiumI suppose that if one has just finished a Ruy game, and one has a current game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, and one asks in the forum for analysis of the finished game, or if one asks in the forum a general question about anti-Marshall lines (or some such), it ought to be alright, even if the advice rendered has a bearing on the current game.
In fact, look at the last part of the sentence, the part about a 3rd party. Since that is grouped in the same phrase of the sentence as "chess engines, chess computers..." with an "and" joining them, then if one takes such an interpretation of the TOS then as long as you have any active games ongoing on RHP you could not discuss any completed games with 3r ...[text shortened]... penly and routinely on this very forum. I think that should put that interpretation to rest.
For that matter, what if one has a chess coach who is giving advice about the very opening one is playing in current games, without making reference to those games? Fire him? I don't suppose so.
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutWell, I had in mind to post something about Ted Bundy's reputation among co-workers as a charming, sensitive man and an all-around sterling fellow, but as we all know, testimonials are seldom conclusive, especially in circumstances such as these.
Well I had in mind to post something more about the day DF generously hosted a meetup between players from our respective clubs who were also on RHP, but I'll cut a long story short. Lets just say that from isidious to miching mallecho via allusions to satanic connections the Dragon Fire of your imagination is very different to the person I've met in real lif ...[text shortened]... st the ghost of your suspicions. If it is not then I may well be reduced to posting emoticons.
The fact is that such a question *might* have been asked for any number of reasons, some innocent, and some not. I perceived a hidden agenda, and see no reason to revise that view. However, I have nothing further to say about this, nor about DF.
It also remains true that the proposed interpretation of the rules of service permits a use of engines and tablebases which, though possibly innocent in some cases, need not be so in others; whereas a literal reading of the terms of service, though onerously restrictive according to some, will not permit any sort of engine/tablebase use even if it merely *might* apply to ongoing games at some point in their future development.
Personally, I prefer a construal of the terms of service which does not rely on such inaccessible and unmeasurable things as the state of mind of the player, the purity of his immortal soul, etc.. There are certainly cases where a player might *inadvertently* commit a breach of the terms of service with regard to engine use, and not be held culpable, but rigorous standards condition players to exercise great care and avoid lapses, whereas indeterminate standards do not.
In this instance, I think that there can be no question that, despite the discovery of putative "ambiguity" in the terms of service, it remains, in its existing form, far more rigorous than the proposed interpretation: the latter states that engine use is cheating (or not) depending on how many plies removed an ongoing game is from the position submitted for engine analysis, without quantifying that (and without any hope of doing so in a meaningful way applicable to the general case); and it also encourages self-serving delusion by explicitly making the crime one of intent.
Imagine if laws regulating motor-vehicle speed were revised to explicitly require "intent to speed". An increase in speeding would be quite predictable, even without ill intent by speeders, simply because they would not feel obliged to maintain rigorous cognizance. Yet, "intent" does play a part in the law, since someone having a heart attack whose spasming foot depresses the accelerator pedal would likely not be charged with speeding. Nor is absolute control of vehicle speed required, since officers have the discretion to exercise latitude in the enforcement of speed laws. Someone going 56 or 57 in a zone limited to 55 will likely not be cited, except in case of so-called speed traps set up for the purpose of raising revenue.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThat is another tricky area, since the TOS treats 3rd party consultation and engine analysis as one and the same crime.
I suppose that if one has just finished a Ruy game, and one has a current game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, and one asks in the forum for analysis of the finished game, or if one asks in the forum a general question about anti-Marshall lines (or some such), it ought to be alright, even if the advice rendered has a bearing on the current game.
For that mat ...[text shortened]... ying in current games, without making reference to those games? Fire him? I don't suppose so.
I haven't analyzed any of my RHP games yet, though I will be doing that very soon. When I do the 3 general guidelines I will use are:
1. Is the past game I am analyzing with assistance (3rd party or engine use) similar to one that I have in progress?
2. Can I use the knowledge gained from such assistance, from either source, to steer my ongoing game in a direction where I can make use of such assistance?
3. Do I have reason to believe that the game in progress will become similar to the past game I am analyzing with assistance?
If I can answer no to each of those questions then I believe I'm within the TOS. If I can't then I'll refrain from such analysis/discussion until the ongoing game in question is over.
What it really comes down to separating the general from the specific. The more specific the advice, engine or 3rd party, is to resembling an ongoing game the more likely you are to be violating the TOS.
There is some nuance involved, but there has to be, since the alternative is, as someone put it, to toss out the baby with the bathwater. If one believes they cannot do any engine analysis of any prior game while one is in progress, then they are also bound by the same implication that they cannot consult a 3rd party about any past game while one is in progress. Naturally this is completely impractical. Thus, one must exercise their own judgment, and when in doubt simply postpone the discussion or the engine analysis.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy(1) I had in mind subreption (a concealment of the pertinent facts in a petition, as for dispensation or favor).
Actually Mark, I think Dragon Fire's reason for asking the question has been clearly stated several times. Unlike some others posting to this thread I've had no previous interaction with DF at all, but I've seen nothing here to suggest the nefarious intent you keep hinting at.
(2) I haven't been hinting.
(3) "Nefarious" is inapt, unless you intended to be satirical.
(4) This is absolutely, positively my last remark on the subject of DF.
Originally posted by scandiumExcellent.
I haven't analyzed any of my RHP games yet, though I will be doing that very soon. When I do the 3 general guidelines I will use are:
1. Is the past game I am analyzing with assistance (3rd party or engine use) similar to one that I have in progress?
2. Can I use the knowledge gained from such assistance, from either source, to steer my ongoing game in ...[text shortened]... then I'll refrain from such analysis/discussion until the ongoing game in question is over.
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsNow let me see I had a game in progress with the following position
(1) I had in mind subreption (a concealment of the pertinent facts in a petition, as for dispensation or favor).
(2) I haven't been hinting.
(3) "Nefarious" is inapt, unless you intended to be satirical.
(4) This is absolutely, positively my last remark on the subject of DF.
Now when I got here my first thought was "I am lost, perhaps it is time I resigned".
My second thought was "Perhaps I could get a perpetual, so maybe I should play on a bit".
My third thought was "If I can give up my 4 Q-side pawns for his 3 and manage to swop off queens do I have a draw here?
My fourth thought on this matter was "This is a long way away from a B and P vs P ending I wonder if it would be reasonable for me to use an engine / tablebase to do some research"?
My fifth thought (being concerned enough to bother about it) was "Before I do anything perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask and see what other people think?
So I did
Pretty soon I decided as a result of some answers I received (not yours) that if the object of my research was specifcally to improve my chances in a current game then I should not do it (yet) so I decided against the research.
Now I actually happen to think that the research would probably not have been unreasonable for a very simple reason. The positions I wanted to research were 7 Ps and 2 Qs away from any of my GIPs and it was inconceivable that the game I was playing could possibly transpose into the lines I wanted to research so any research I did could not possibly influence this or any other GIP and was therefore purely theorectical in nature. Be in no doubt I am aware that if there is any chance my research could influence a current GIP it should be avoided.
I am not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand this. You can look at the above position and see that I could not possibly have derived and benefit in this game from the research I was thinking about (but actually did not do).
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) With no basis for or proof of what you had in mind, you should have kept it to yourself.
(1) I had in mind subreption (a concealment of the pertinent facts in a petition, as for dispensation or favor).
(2) I haven't been hinting.
(3) "Nefarious" is inapt, unless you intended to be satirical.
(4) This is absolutely, positively my last remark on the subject of DF.
(2) Call it what you like. It is rude behavior.
(3) Nefarious means "wicked or villainous" as in a "nefarious plot". Which is indeed what you have been suggesting DF is involved in when you wrote...
"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?"
(4) I'm not talking about DF either. I'm talking about you.
2 edits
Originally posted by Sleepyguy(1) It is your unsupported and erroneous contention that I had no basis for what I had in mind.
(1) With no basis for or proof of what you had in mind, you should have kept it to yourself.
(2) Call it what you like. It is rude behavior.
(3) Nefarious means "wicked or villainous" as in a "nefarious plot". Which is indeed what you have been suggesting DF is involved in when you wrote...
(4) I'm not talking about DF either. I'm talking about you.
(2) Sez you. I'll get you, and your little doG, too.
(3) Nefarious means extremely wicked or villainous. Note the adverbial modifier. As bad as cheating at chess is, the term is inapt here.
(4) You're talking about me talking about DF. It's difficult to respond without talking about DF. There. You see?
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) If you have some basis then you are too much a coward to state it in support of your assertions.
(1) It is your unsupported and erroneous contention that I had no basis for what I had in mind.
(2) Sez you. I'll get you, and your little doG, too.
(3) Nefarious means extremely wicked or villainous. Note the adverbial modifier. As bad as cheating at chess is, the term is inapt here.
(4) You're talking about me talking about DF. It's difficult to respond without talking about DF. There. You see?
(2) More rude behavior. You are like school yard bully with a large vocabulary.
(3) Potato, potahto. You have chosen to quibble over the strict definition of a word rather than address the substance of your own words, which was not actually that DF was cheating, but was rather a suggestion that he was attempting some sort of "coup d'etat". It is a ridiculous suggestion which you have failed to support.
(4) I do see. You are like any other school yard bully - best confronted.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy(1) Say, rather, that I am prudent. (And no, I won't explain that either.)
(1) If you have some basis then you are too much a coward to state it in support of your assertions.
(2) More rude behavior. You are like school yard bully with a large vocabulary.
(3) Potato, potahto. You have chosen to quibble over the strict definition of a word rather than address the substance of your own words, which was not actually that DF ...[text shortened]... led to support.
(4) I do see. You are like any other school yard bully - best confronted.
(2) Your nose just keeps getting longer, Pinocchio. And since you've never been a real little boy, it's not surprising that you misuse schoolyard analogies.
(3) I'm sure you meant to write "potatoe". Quibble, quibble.
(4) I just gave you a figurative noogie. Haw haw.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsTalk about damage control. I rest my case, coward.
(1) Say, rather, that I am prudent. (And no, I won't explain that either.)
(2) Your nose just keeps getting longer, Pinocchio. And since you've never been a real little boy, it's not surprising that you misuse schoolyard analogies.
(3) I'm sure you meant to write "potatoe". Quibble, quibble.
(4) I just gave you a figurative noogie. Haw haw.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsStill making friends I see.
(1) Say, rather, that I am prudent. (And no, I won't explain that either.)
(2) Your nose just keeps getting longer, Pinocchio. And since you've never been a real little boy, it's not surprising that you misuse schoolyard analogies.
(3) I'm sure you meant to write "potatoe". Quibble, quibble.
(4) I just gave you a figurative noogie. Haw haw.
🙄