Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI am prepared to let sleeping dogs lie and will assume that your posts merely indicate a strong belief that any computer assistance whether legitimate or not should not be permitted rather than some insidious dig at me.
(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?
I, on the other hand, do feel computers have their place both in the analysis of past games and in the search for knowledge and that provided you do not use them to seek undue assistance / influence or in the choice of moves in a GIP that their use is appropriate.
I asked what was intended to be a legitimate question for discussion and gave as an example the most appropriate GIP I had at that time.
This thread was never intended to be anything more than that, a discussion but I fear it has got too personal so could I request you refrain from any more personal jibes at anyone. There have been some legitimate views aired here and besides your extreme views, which you are entitled to, I believe the rest of us can actually see and understand the issues being aired and do not actually disagree significantly (and I include Wormwood and Gatecrasher in that who I think understand the dilemma which we can all face).
In my opinion the majority of players who contribute to the "Only Chess" forum are legitimate chess players as I believe all those who have contributed here are and perhaps it is now time to end this.
Yes, it was beginning to get out of hand and a continuation would be tedious.
The ironic thing is that I never accused Dragon Fire of cheating in his RHP games, which is why I wouldn't attempt to analyze them for engine use, even if I had the means. If you're already cheating, subreption is superfluous. (My perceptions in this regard are based on experience and pattern recognition -- something chess players should find at least broadly intelligible, even though I am not talking about positions on a chessboard.)
The basic problem remains: if, in modifying the interpretation of the terms of service regarding engine and tablebase use, you open a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, it really doesn't matter if the loophole also has a legitimate and innocent justification, because you can still drive the truck through. Furthermore, if the loophole gains de facto acceptance, some would argue that the act of driving that truck no longer constitutes cheating. They would base that argument on the claim that, because of the loophole, there is now a continuous gradation between various acts of engine use that erases any ability to distinguish them on an objective, definitional basis. The fact that driving a truck through still constitutes a violation of the spirit of the terms of service wouldn't concern them if they have no ethics but do have a self-interested motivation to provide themselves with a legalistic justification for truck driving, without which they would be unable or reluctant to proceed.
I think the point about grey areas (and there are certainly plenty regarding engine use) is that they'll always be open to different interpretations. Intent is obviously the most important consideration, but it's clearly hard to prove.
The only dilemma I've really had (or almost had) was when I decided to subject some critical lines of the Rosentreter variation of the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3) to quite extensive analysis by an engine for my own personal interest (not really connected with RHP). Being a very sharp and tactical line, it seemed a good use of an engine. However, while I was in the process of doing this, one of my RHP games started out this way. As it happened, my opponent didn't play 4...g4, so the problem didn't really arise. I suppose if my opponent had played 4...g4, I would have had to suspend the research into this line for the duration of the game, which might have been very inconvenient, given the duration of some games on RHP.
Another possible dilemma (which hasn't yet occurred in my case) would be if my preparation for an important OTB game included using an engine in regards to an opening line I expect my opponent to play, when I was already playing that line in a game on RHP. I'm sorry, but I think my interest in the OTB game would have to take priority.
Originally posted by Northern LadIn such a case, no conflict exists - provided you immediately resign your RHP game prior to starting your engine assisted analysis of the same line. Of course you could try offering a draw first, but if declined you'd be bound both ethically and by the TOS to terminate the game.
Another possible dilemma (which hasn't yet occurred in my case) would be if my preparation for an important OTB game included using an engine in regards to an opening line I expect my opponent to play, when I was already playing that line in a game on RHP. I'm sorry, but I think my interest in the OTB game would have to take priority.
Originally posted by scandiumWhy should my RHP game have any influence over an otherwise unrelated game in an OTB tournament? It doesn't make sense.
In such a case, no conflict exists - provided you immediately resign your RHP game prior to starting your engine assisted analysis of the same line. Of course you could try offering a draw first, but if declined you'd be bound both ethically and by the TOS to terminate the game.
Originally posted by Northern LadYou 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 have on the OTB game (both are irrelevant), but the influence that the engine analysis would have on the same line that you're (hypothetically) playing on RHP. Such engine use, even if the intent is toward using it for the OTB game, would violate the RHP TOS. Since the OTB game takes precedence, the solution that would allow you to do such analysis and stay within the TOS here would be to resign the RHP game prior to beginning the engine analysis.
Why should my RHP game have any influence over an otherwise unrelated game in an OTB tournament? It doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Northern LadThe latter would indeed be a problem and I would probably do exactly the same although like you this has never happened. You could I suppose stop making moves in the RHP game and hope it never went down the lines you were preparing for OTB or you could deliberately diverge prior to the end of any DB lines. I would probably do that and take the games down different lines but In don't see why I should resign a game here due to unrelated preparation OTB.
I think the point about grey areas (and there are certainly plenty regarding engine use) is that they'll always be open to different interpretations. Intent is obviously the most important consideration, but it's clearly hard to prove.
The only dilemma I've really had (or almost had) was when I decided to subject some critical lines of the Rosentret on RHP. I'm sorry, but I think my interest in the OTB game would have to take priority.
The same could happen in the end game, which is where I started this thread, and interestingly I have just got a R, B & 4P vs 2R & 2P ending OTB that is going to adjudication and is not a million miles removed from some games here. Must I refrain from analysising it? Must I resign similar games here? I will I am afraid do neither - I will analysis my OTB game for adjudication and I will hope it does not impact on an on going game here.
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. I think it shows that it is probably reasonable, in most circumstances, to analyse these things unless you are analysising the end of a long forcing line being played in a GIP which would infringe the rules.
As you say it goes to intent which is something most people who have posted to this thread understand. Because in the example I gave in my original dilemma the intent was to analyse variations that an existing GIP could go down (very far removed and improbable if not impossible but never the less theroretically possible) that analysis had to be avoided, as I conceded immediately and did (i.e. did not analyse that type of ending).
Originally posted by Dragon FireThe point, as I understood it, was that it would be related. If you have a game going on in one line and you are analyzing exactly the same line with an engine for the purpose of OTB prep, or anything else (the purpose is entirely irrelevant) then you are defacto also analyzing your RHP game with an engine since the same line is being studied with engine analysis while a game being played with that line on RHP.
The latter would indeed be a problem and I would probably do exactly the same although like you this has never happened. You could I suppose stop making moves in the RHP game and hope it never went down the lines you were preparing for OTB or you could deliberately diverge prior to the end of any DB lines. I would probably do that and take the games down ...[text shortened]... rent lines but In don't see why I should resign a game here due to unrelated preparation OTB.
To quote the TOS again:
"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. "
Thus, in NL's hypothetical example, with the OTB game preparation taking precedence, the only course of action that is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the TOS is termination of the RHP game. There is no nuance or gray area here. Any other course of action, including suspending the RHP game temporarily, would constitute a direct violation of the TOS and it would be, regardless of your intention, cheating because that's what a violation of this part of the TOS is.
By the way, I really don't understand why there is even a debate about this. To me it seems open and shut. The maximum ratings points you lose in an RHP game is 32. Are 32 rating points really that important that one is willing to set aside their integrity and honesty to have their cake and eat it to? If so then you're far too attached to your rating, and if its "earned" with practices such as this then its completely meaningless anyway.
Personally I would never be willing to compromise the rating that I, and I alone have earned, whatever the number, by engaging in a practice where the rating has been nullified by an action that breaks the TOS that it depends on. The more nuance and rationalization you have to add in to justify it the more you need to ask yourself why its necessary to do this.
Originally posted by scandiumReading this, the only logical solution that you see for very active chess players (OTB, online chess, correspondence sites like RHP) is that they better quit playing in RHP, since they might have to resign a substantial part of their games, because some of these situations are very likely to arise often. One tends to play and study similar openings and systems during a given period, not to mention the 'fashion' element.
The point, as I understood it, was that it would be related. If you have a game going on in one line and you are analyzing exactly the same line with an engine for the purpose of OTB prep, or anything else (the purpose is entirely irrelevant) then you are defacto also analyzing your RHP game with an engine since [i]the same line is being studied with engine ...[text shortened]... less of your intention, cheating because that's what a violation of this part of the TOS is.
Secondly, it is not about the 32 (or whatherver number) rating points, since RHP's ToS does not make the distinction between rated and unrated (I even forgot how often I mentioned this point before).
Is it so hard to accept that there are points that are not so clear for everybody?
Originally posted by Mephisto2Its 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 choices.
Reading this, the only logical solution that you see for very active chess players (OTB, online chess, correspondence sites like RHP) is that they better quit playing in RHP, since they might have to resign a substantial part of their games, because some of these situations are very likely to arise often. One tends to play and study similar openings and s ...[text shortened]... efore).
Is it so hard to accept that there are points that are not so clear for everybody?
In our hypothetical example, player A chooses an opening line in an RHP game. While the game is ongoing in this line, he chooses to play in an OTB tournament where he again chooses to intend to prepare the same line he is playing here. As part of his preparation he chooses to assist his preparation for that line with an engine. He is making a lot of deliberate choices and its only the last one that is a problem because it violates the TOS he agreed to when he joined RHP.
You make it sound as if our poor engine using cheater, because that's exactly what he would be if he decides to go down this path, is a mere victim of circumstances forced upon him. Hogwash. He has many alternative choices that do not conflict with the TOS and would still allow him to play and prepare for the OTB tournament.
He could, for instance, eliminate the particular line he is playing here from that part of his engine assisted analysis and either choose something else in its place or simply use more conventional analysis tools that do not clash with the TOS. Do you think Fischer fired up Fritz to prepare for his games against the Russians? You make it sound as if foregoing engine analysis is some kind of hardship when players have been doing that for centuries. And these are world class players playing other world class players.
He could also choose an alternate line to prepare in its place. There is more than one opening in chess and many variations within any system. I know most serious players have backup openings they play when the need or desire arises.
And contrary to what you're suggesting I doubt these situations arise very often at all, no matter how active the player. Should it arise he has several viable choices to pick from and he is hardly some kind victim of circumstance who has no other alternatives but to either break the TOS or quit RHP.
By the way, lets put the foot on the other shoe and consider the reverse a moment. What do you think would happen if you pulled out your pocket fritz and Blackberry in the middle of an OTB game to do a little research on the line you're playing on the board which just happens to be the same line you want to prepare for against your opponent in the next round of your RHP tournament. How do you suppose that would go over with your opponent and the tournament arbiters?
Or since you brought up online chess, try doing some engine assisted research on agame you're playing here in the middle of an STC ICC game and see what Speedtrap thinks of that. Then try your rationalizations, nuances and excuses on the ICC admins and watch how fast you get a (C) tagged to your username.
You and the (very few) others seem determined to take the me, me, me attitude with little regard or no regard to how your RHP opponent may feel if he knew you were analyzing with an engine the very same line he is playing against you unassisted and with the understanding that you are doing the same because that's what you agreed to when you checked the "I agree" box on the TOS when you signed up here. If all of a sudden you can't abide by that any longer than you don't belong here. Its that simple.
Originally posted by scandiumYou are just covering blindness by loose arguments. Consider this:
By the way, lets put the foot on the other shoe and consider the reverse a moment. What do you think would happen if you pulled out your pocket fritz and Blackberry in the middle of an OTB game to do a little research on the line you're playing on the board which just happens to be the same line you want to prepare for against your opponent in the next roun ...[text shortened]... a sudden you can't abide by that any longer than you don't belong here. Its that simple.
- for the majority of serious chess players, OTB is the most important. Any other media can then be used as training, preparation, study, ... And that may include engines, period. And that may include using moves from one (ongoing correspondence) game into another, period. These are facts from the real world. Now, there are potential conflicts with the ToS of RHP. What do you suggest? To stick your head in the sand, and let it happen, not knowing that it happens, or worse, knowing that you are sooooooooooooooo right and calling them cheaters? Or would a sensible discussion be a step towards properly dealing with the issue?
- you didn't make any allusion to setup/unrated games as a potential solution for these players for whom RHP is just one tool (but not a goal in itself). You have no opinion about that? Because it certainly addresses your worry that the 'me,me,me' has no respect for the precious rating points earned by the fellow RHP players.
- you see no need in using engines; well, then don't waste your money on any. But know that engine use is not forbidden in correspondence chess. And by the way, to which form of chess does e-mail based chess resembles the most?
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 engine checking it for fear that Fritz et al. makes him/her look silly.
The only puritan stance left is to play completely without reference to anything at all and as I said earlier in this thread it is unlikely that many strong players would do that because they will lose too many games to those who would refer to "legitimate" material.