I have realized that people on this site have very different views on how much help it's ok to get from other things than your own brain without consider it cheating. It bothers me a little, since I think it may make games unfair, when players have different views on this. It would have been great if you could answer this anonymously, since not many people will admit to using #6....but if you dare anyway:

What kind of assistance or aid do you use in a correspondence game of chess?

1. Nothing. Only my brain!

2. An analysis board, to help my visual memory

3. Books 

4. Databases, such as Game Explorer on Chess.com

5. Friends, other players

6. Programs! 

 

Dmytro wrote:

What type of chess are you speaking about?

If CC - computers forbidden, if over-the-board chess - everything except your brain is forbidden,  if so called "advanced" chess - everything is allowed, it's chess play using computers.

---

 I said "correspondence game of chess", and then I mean the kind of games we play here on chess.com. I know computers are forbidden, but I'm curious to see if someone dares to admit using them. Probably not, so a anonymous poll, perhaps possible in the future, would give better information.

 

2, 3, and 4 for me. If not for those, I wouldn't see reason in playing CC.

Seriously, just using your brain for CC is technically just a normal game of chess with an insanely long time control. 

It depends...

For general correspondence games 2 and some assistance from 3 and 4 is ok.  I take the view that for this site the focus is on learning and rating is just an indicator for choosing your opponents. 

As for Chess.com Tournaments; in those situations I think 3 and 4 is NOT acceptable.  I know a lot of people here still do.

In any situation where a prize or a title is at stake then I think 1 is the only acceptable option. 

I think friends or computer chess assistance would only be acceptable if the opponent knows and agrees before hand.

2,3,4

1,2,3,4 ...

 

Once the game is over I'll use all 6 for analysis though.

ShadowLord wrote:

It depends...

For general correspondence games 2 and some assistance from 3 and 4 is ok.  I take the view that for this site the focus is on learning and rating is just an indicator for choosing your opponents. 

As for Chess.com Tournaments; in those situations I think 3 and 4 is NOT acceptable.  I know a lot of people here still do.

In any situation where a prize or a title is at stake then I think 1 is the only acceptable option. 

I think friends or computer chess assistance would only be acceptable if the opponent knows and agrees before hand.

---

I'm sorry I've read this sort of comment in this and other forums and I don't get it.  1-4 are part of turn based, correspondence chess and are permitted by the rules of this site.  So playing the game according to the rules is by definition fair.  5 and 6 are against the rules and by definition unfair.  Whether or not it is a tournament is totally irrelevant. The exception is where both players agree to use 5 and/or 6 and the game MUST be unrated in that case. It's not a question of what people think, it's the rules.

There is a group here called Circle of Trust who play without any of 2-6.  That is their choice; I have played several of them and I use 2-4 as well, they don't complain I'm being unfair in doing so. 

I like to hold back from using #4  until after my move, sometimes.

It helps me remember the opening better that way for some reason I don't know why.

1,2,3 only

1 and 2 only.

I play here as though playing live over a board: I couldn't possibly imagine rising from the table during a game and saying, "Hold on while I go look something up and make a few phone calls."

You could even argue that an analysis board is too much freedom. But using 3-6 for a specific game position is completely gauche.

 

Clownfish wrote:

It bothers me a little, since I think it may make games unfair, when players have different views on this. 

---

 This is a re-occurring topic on these forums. People simply have to understand that correspondence chess is not exactly the same as over-the-board chess - it's a slightly different game with slightly different rules. In correspondence chess, research is allowed by the rules. Following the rules is not cheating. If you don't like the rules, play a different game. You don't want to do research while playing? You feel it's unfair when others do? Fine. Don't play correspondence chess!

To answer the question, I use 1-4 in correspondence chess. 

Well, interesting topic, I only use #1. I may now use more, but I just like to play chess......

AlanL wrote:

1 and 2 only.

I play here as though playing live over a board: I couldn't possibly imagine rising from the table during a game and saying, "Hold on while I go look something up and make a few phone calls."

You could even argue that an analysis board is too much freedom. But using 3-6 for a specific game position is completely gauche.

 

---

Well since I posted that I do indeed use 2-4 here I suppose I should take your comment personally?  I resent being called gauche or awkward etc just because I play the game here as it is designed to be played and according to the rules.  Just because you chose to treat it like it's an over the board game doesn't give you the right to impose your view on the rest of us.  I mentioned the group COT, they play as if it's OTB with very longtime limits......fair play to them but they respect my right and choice to do differently. You on the other hand either can't understand the difference or chose to ignore it and insult anyone who disagrees.

I take the point others have made that it can weaken your otb chess if you become reliant and indeed it may.  On the other hand I have found that I study the opening and ending better with a live game as motivation rather than in the abstract...and I am gaining a better understanding. 

 

MM78 wrote: AlanL wrote:

1 and 2 only.

I play here as though playing live over a board: I couldn't possibly imagine rising from the table during a game and saying, "Hold on while I go look something up and make a few phone calls."

You could even argue that an analysis board is too much freedom. But using 3-6 for a specific game position is completely gauche.

 

---

Well since I posted that I do indeed use 2-4 here I suppose I should take your comment personally?  I resent being called gauche or awkward etc just because I play the game here as it is designed to be played and according to the rules.  Just because you chose to treat it like it's an over the board game doesn't give you the right to impose your view on the rest of us.  I mentioned the group COT, they play as if it's OTB with very longtime limits......fair play to them but they respect my right and choice to do differently. You on the other hand either can't understand the difference or chose to ignore it and insult anyone who disagrees.

I take the point others have made that it can weaken your otb chess if you become reliant and indeed it may.  On the other hand I have found that I study the opening and ending better with a live game as motivation rather than in the abstract...and I am gaining a better understanding. 

 

---

Not meant personally. I meant it would be gauche to do it over the board. I don't want to impose anything here.

I choose to play as though over the board, but I realize others don't. I'm not complaining. The choice not to consult other sources is mine. I prefer to work out the position on my own, however poorly.  :-)

Whether I am playing against another person, his books, or his computer, doesn't really matter much to me.

 

 

AlanL that's fair enough, sorry if I was a bit tetchy.  This topic has been covered before a few times and this was the straw that broke the camel's back :-)

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

Following the rules is not cheating. If you don't like the rules, play a different game. You don't want to do research while playing? You feel it's unfair when others do? Fine. Don't play correspondence chess!

---

 I didn't say it was cheating, but I AM bothered by the fact that the rules are laid out the way they are. And please, don't tell me what to do! This is the only kind of chess I can get, since my chess playing friends don't live nearby. This is not just practice, this is the chess I play. So - I guess I'll have to live with it. The Circle of Trust sounds interesting...

I basically only use 1 and 2, but since the Game Explorer raised discussion and I understood that most (?) seem to use databases, I have allowed myself a few times to look in during a game as well, but I feel a little dirty afterwards! ;)

In contrast to AlanL, this DOES bother me. It matters to me if I play a person, a book or a computer. Otherwise, I could just have downloaded a program to play with...  So, at this point, I don't know how to get what I want... Maybe I'll just have to follow the other sheep...

Clownfish wrote: lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

Following the rules is not cheating. If you don't like the rules, play a different game. You don't want to do research while playing? You feel it's unfair when others do? Fine. Don't play correspondence chess!

---

 I didn't say it was cheating, but I AM bothered by the fact that the rules are laid out the way they are. And please, don't tell me what to do! This is the only kind of chess I can get, since my chess playing friends don't live nearby. This is not just practice, this is the chess I play. So - I guess I'll have to live with it. The Circle of Trust sounds interesting...

---

 I'm sorry for the way my post sounded. I didn't mean you personally. What I meant was, if any person doesn't like the rules of game X then that person has to make a choice: either just live with the rules, or don't play game X.

Correspondence chess has been played for hundreds of years. Throughout those 100s of years, the use of books for research during a game has always been allowed. Now that computer databases exist, it is widely accepted that the use of databases is also allowed in correspondence chess. The International Correspondence Chess Federation is not going to change its rules just because a minority of people on the internet misinterpret these rules.

Note that the use of a chess program, such as Fritz or Chessmaster, to select moves for you during a game is forbidden by the rules, as is consulting other people for help.

This site is a correspondence chess website. The rules here are the rules of correspondence chess. Complaining that the rules are unfair doesn't make sense; these rules have been accepted and followed by correspondence chess players for centuries. If you want to play chess with over-the-board rules, you could try the "Live chess" feature on this website or look into the COT group. 

I use 2 very frequently. I feel I should use 3 and 4 sometimes (although rarely do) as I may be putting myself at a disadvantage in some games by not doing so.

I certainly can't play multiple games (sometimes with several days between moves ) and keep my train of thought in each game without using the analysis board, to a least backtrack a few moves to orientate myself agian with the postition.

I also sometimes use notes, which maybe should be given a number in this list as it is an aid.

I (contrary to an earlier post) would take great offence if someone was using 5 or 6. I am playing on the understanding that if my opponent is rated somewhere around my own rating I may have a fighting chance of winning. If they use a program, or seek help from possibly a much stronger player I suspect I would have little chance of winning and would feel cheated

Tunatin wrote: 7 for me, though I'm not proud of it.

---

 hehe, what would that be? Mind reading?

I also sometimes use notes, which maybe should be given a number in this list as it is an aid.Quaff wrote:

I (contrary to an earlier post) would take great offence if someone was using 5 or 6. I am playing on the understanding that if my opponent is rated somewhere around my own rating I may have a fighting chance of winning. If they use a program, or seek help from possibly a much stronger player I suspect I would have little chance of winning and would feel cheated

---

 And rightly so. That's against the rules:

No Cheating or Computer Help

You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.

http://www.chess.com/legal.html