Is it cheating to use youtube during games?

Sigh you know something is wrong when NO ONE has given proof that it is illegal to use a board during a game

@IseeHow,

“You seem to think I have an interest in starting a conversation with you. I don't.”

Interesting line of reasoning. You say you have no interest in starting a conversation. But you started a conversation to tell me that. Doesn’t that strike you as an oxymoron? If you really don’t want to have a conversation with me, then don’t! ;)

You did hint I was spending too much time on my lengthy replies. It is my time and I choose to spend it anyway I want. ;)

Besides, I don’t spend as much time as you believe. I told you my wonderfully busy schedule so you could see that I don’t spend a lot of time on my replies. I really don’t – lol!

@Oatmeal,

There is no reason to repeat yourself. We heard you already heard you.

But since you aren’t going to read my posts, I guess it doesn’t matter what I post here. ;)

Seriously, would you really decide not to play on chess.com if someone was to write a specific rule against using a physical chess set? What if all the chess web sites do incorporate this rule? Would you never play chess on the Internet again?

But before I end here, please not that there is a written policy at chess.com. They say, when posting, “be nice”.  

I suspect if there are any chess.com rules, even in writing, that you don’t agree with, you are going to ignore them and do what you want to do.

Blaster, outside of some sections of logic and math, proving something is impossible. Instead we can only offer evidence that something is true or not.

To have absolute proof about anything else is impossible.

I have offered evidence about my conclusion.  That’s all. It may take some time offer evidence, but that is sometimes the nature of offering evidence of something.

Have a wonderful day! =)

That isn't the reason to use a physical board. The notation discussion was just a statement that the electronic chess.com board was being used like a MonRoi (or other electronic scorekeeping device) in an OTB game. That is it.

The benefit is that a player may be more comfortable with physical pieces and/or wants to mimic OTB play for practice. There is no reason to tell the opponent as it isn't something that gives a game advantage and isn't against the rules (barring the potential analysis, move takeback argument which is a valid, though different one).

Yes, making a move and changing your mind with a physical board before submitting would probably be considered analysis in Live and not condoned. No one here has said it wouldn't and in fact have agreed that it probably would be and shouldn't be allowed (but again, impossible to detect and enforce).

But you are wrong with the grabbing a piece in the electronic board. Chess.com does not enforce touch move in Live. If you put the piece back where it was, you can move something else. There is nothing different in that scenerio short of the possibility of accidentally making the move on the electronic board when trying it. Still really against the letter of the rule but something that is not enforced (the site pretty much uses clock rule but the clock gets hit as soon as the move is determined).

I would be surprised if they ever enforce touch move. I can already imagine the topics about people accidentally touching a piece (either via mouse or touch screen) and being forced to move. In an electronic context, intent would be almost impossible to determine (where in OTB it usually is easier to tell).

Are you sure you're an American barefoot? Your reasoning strikes me more as someone from a communist country. Guilty until proven innocent in your world it seems. "Well someone COULD do this so no one should be allowed it regardless of intent". You're probably one of those anti - gun knuckleheads aren't you? After all, someone COULD kill someone else with a gun without justification, so all those pesky private citizens arming themselves with the innocent intent of self defense shouldn't have them either. And your argument on the definition of the term analysis is moronic. You're saying you don't have to move the pieces to analyze? If they're not physically moving the pieces to check variations then they are playing in the spirit of the game visualizing. Where is the advantage to be gained if they are not physically moving the pieces?

@Taulmaril,

(1) I was born here in the US and I and I am older than most people who post here. 

And I since I have never lost my citizenship, it also means that I've been a US citizen longer than most of the posters here.

(2) The "guilty until proven innocent" concept is a misonception at best, at worst, a lie.

Owning a working machine gun in the US is illegal; so is owning many drugs. It does matter what you intend to do with these items, it is still illegal to own them. The US does not have to prove what they intention is or was, just that fact that on has them can send a person to prison for years, decades, or even life.

In chess, the punishments are, on the whole, less severe. But you still cannot have a tablet, a cell phone, a PC, a chess engine, and other things next to you in an OTB game, even if you never intend to use them. It is still illegal to possess them and you can be kicked out of the tournament without proof you were going to use them.

Years ago, a player by the name of Neumann won a substational amount of money at the World Open. It was suspected he was cheating with large earphones attached over his ears. The TD's demanded to examine what was being pumped into his ears. He declined. Based on this, and some chess problems he could not solve, he was kicked out the tournament and forfieted his prize fund.

Did the USCF "prove" that Neumann cheated? No. Did Neumann have anything on him that could be considered illegal at that time? Unknown.

But he was kicked out.

I think it was last year that a GM (I think it was Kamsky) that was forced to forfeit a game becuase his cell phone rang. Did his cell phone give him an advantage when it rang. Probably not. But he was forced to lose the game as he had a phone. 

I do not necessarily advocate such a thinking pattern. I am only interpreting what is written in the rules of chess.

(3) It is entirely possible to analyze a position without moving pieces. I can do when I am trying to figure out my next move in an OTB game, and so do many players. It is the word found in books, magazines, newspaper to describe the process a player can see moves in advance, and make judgements on those moves and the resulting positions. What verb would you prefer me to use?

@Barefoot Player:

Just want to let you know that I appreciate your efforts and that I agree with you 100%.  Alas the concept of "cheating" elicits such emotional responses that your efforts are bound to fail.  As I posted earlier, sometimes it's best just to agree to disagree and move on.  Or maybe I'm just an old man who finds argument pointless at this stage of his life...

But having a second board in sight with the exact same position on it doesn't help in that type of analysis (one gains no benefit from it). That has been a large part of your argument against a physical board (having a second board) because you say it is an analysis board. Yet, if the same positition is on both boards, and all the analysis is in your head, then the OTB rule against an analysis board isn't in play.

That is, an analysis board where you just have to analyse in your head isn't no different than the board the game is being played on and conveys no game advantage. (again this discounts the discussion of moving a piece on one and changing one's mind before entering it in the electronic board).

The concept does elicit emotional repsonses from people. But for those that have been around the forums (or life ) long enough know that a lot of people claim things are cheating that are not cheating.

The use of a physical board, in and of itstelf, is not cheating and is even allowed by the rules when there is an assitant TD (in tourney games) there to verify touch move is being followed. It is even implicitly allowed without that if the players agree that they are abiding by the rules of the game (again, touch move, no analysing by moving pieces around).

The only real discussion becomes that since it is possible that someone could potentially not follow touch move, that physical boards should just be outright disallowed.

That said, it will take staff to make a statement on it one way or the other to limit any further discussion about legality (but being the internet it will never stop it ).

It doesn't take maths to show a simple rule that says "no physical boards allowed" does it?

@Martin,

“The concept does elicit emotional repsonses from people. But for those that have been around the forums (or life Wink) long enough know that a lot of people claim things are cheating that are not cheating. “

So what? The question is not whether 10 people agree or find fault. It is whether it a practice is legal or not that is, at least I think it is, the discussion we have here.

“The use of a physical board, in and of itstelf, is not cheating and is even allowed by the rules when there is an assitant TD (in tourney games) there to verify touch move is being followed. It is even implicitly allowed without that if the players agree that they are abiding by the rules of the game (again, touch move, no analysing by moving pieces around).”

“The only real discussion becomes that since it is possible that someone could potentially not follow touch move, that physical boards should just be outright disallowed.”

Not really. An item can be considered illegal just by being close enough to a player for him to make use of it.

“The use of a physical board, in and of itstelf, is not cheating and is even allowed by the rules when there is an assitant TD (in tourney games) there to verify touch move is being followed. ...

There is no TD or ATD in Oatmeal’s scenario, just him and his two boards.

... It is even implicitly allowed without that if the players agree that they are abiding by the rules of the game (again, touch move, no analysing by moving pieces around).”

This would be correct if the game being played is not a tournament game (defined for this essay, as a game is where rating points are at risk).

However, in the Mr. Oatmeal’s scenario, it is apparent that he is using his second board in a tournament game, with both players’ ratings at stake.

Two players, just as two people under the jurisdiction of a lawful society, cannot lawfully make an agreement that takes them outside of the law. This is one of the reasons behind that two players cannot both have seconds providing them help during the course of the game, even if both of them agree beforehand.  The same can be said about player accepting money for an arranged loss (called a “dive”- I’m listing to “Eye of the Tiger” as I am writing this. Most of the you will get this!)

Mr. Oatmeal does not even tell his opponent that he is using a second board. So how can both players ever come to an agreement concerning the use of a second board?

If a second board does not confer an advantage to Mr. Oatmeal, as been asserted, then couple of questions immediately come to mind.

One, why does he use one (a second board) if there is no advantage to him? Seems like it takes some time and a lot of space to do so to be a simple decoration.

Second, why does he fight so vigorously to keep using one, esp. if others point out the inherent possibilities of the practice being illegal?

@Iseehow

This is precisely why I'm amazed that more than 0 people are seriously trying to communicate with you.

I think you wrote this line wrong. I think what you meant was, “This is precisely why I'm amazed that NO more than 0 people are seriously trying to communicate with you.” Otherwise, what you are saying is that at least one person is arguing with me. Should be more careful about your words.

I am going to assume that you had meant to add the word “NO” to your last sentence and go from there.

OK, but you are a person. Am I to assume that you are not serious? Or that you are not trying to communicate with me? Interesting how you say you are not communicating to me by communicating to me. Doesn’t anyone see the irony of this? Another case of an oxymoron?

I’m baffled how someone who doesn’t want to have a conversation nor communicate with me does converse and does communicate with me.

You write word after word ...(That’s how we build sentences. And sentences after sentences create paragraphs.  Is there a point to making this observation?)

... trying to find a good reason to hang on to against using a wooden board when looking at a computer screen ...(This is not that easy to do. Have you ever tried to grab, lift, and then move a chess piece to a specific square on the board, all while looking at something else? Again, you should be more careful with your words.)

you are unable to find any, so you finish it off (finish off what?) by asking why is he doing it. (It’s a valid question as there doesn’t seem to be a purpose unless he derives an advantage. Players have been forfeited for drawing a diagram on the score sheet, which conveys less information than a full fledged chess set)

Well, big news: because he can. Seems that this fact hurts you. 

He can also wear a green shirt and dye his hair purple. So what? He can also, or at least attempt, to use a chess engine. He has those choices. Hurray for the power of choice! Is there point to your paragraph?

And am I supposed to be hurt by what you are saying? Is that your intention?

“And you know, if I was playing 30min + increment games while looking at a computer screen, concentrating hard on it, my eyes would hurt ...”

To use your own words, big news; reading glasses are legal, and you can get them for $1.00 at the 99 Cents Only store. And no one at the tournament will force you to take an eye test. So you can get the best pair of glasses you want.

...as they have been badly used too much during my lifetime. So you know what I would do? Get me a real board to look to... don't worry, not to analyze or play on it. It's a particular situation because of the online thing involved here.

If thy eyes hurt too much, then play correspondence chess, with post cards if you want. That way you are in line with the rules, instead of bending and changing, and breaking the rules to accommodate you. Can you name any competition where a competitor can break a rule whenever he wants? I can’t.

Having said that, there are exceptions to many rules that can be considered. But instead of trying to talk with the TD, or talking to the other players, about an exception, and why an exception should be allowed, you unilaterally decide to do something that is at least underhanded and potentially illegal, and then try to justify it. Why not talk to the TD about your “disability”? Besides he might just be a liberal, nice guy and let you have your way. Why not just announce to every player you meet online that you are going to use a second board to make your move? What is preventing you from telling them? Maybe you have a suspicion that such a second board may not be so kosher after all?

“All I know is that OTB comparisons are idiotic since you already have a board there” But not a second one ;)

“But feel free to keep dragging this forever, post after post, word after word.” Well, thanks. It seems you are feeling free enough to keep dragging this discussion. And I’m glad you are offering me the same chance to continue this discussion as you are. At least you are fair-mind in this regard.

@Barefoot, may post more later and can't quote on the device I'm on but you are wrong about the rated game question. Read the rulebook chapter on Internet games and even without a TD games could be played for rating, even in a tournament. The rule is it gets treated just like a rated game between players without a TD available (which IS allowable). Basically, the players have to say that all game rules were followed, which would allow a physical board as long as touch move was observed (which really is on the honor system). It may require some paperwork for the USCF; I don't have the book right in front of me to quote the specifics.

There is no need to come to an agreement about something if it isn't really against the rules. In correspondence, I don't have to tell people that I look up lines in books and databases, even if they are not aware that is perfectly legal and allowable. This situation isn't any different (with the understanding it isn't prohibited).

The physical board doesn't confer a game advantage. That is, it doesn't help the player magically find better moves; they still have to calculate and understand what is going on. It isn't like cheating that provides a player with moves they wouldn't have figured out on their own.

In general terms, it may provide a cognitive advantage. Some people may not play as well on a 2D or electronic boards (I find the 3D pieces on most electronic boards less than useless). So, yes, a player may gain a slight advantage over the use of an electronic board. Conversely, their opponent may actually be better on an electronic board .... I'm not going to try and claim that it really gives them a game advantage (just like my discussion on faster mouse, PC, internet etc).

The other advantage is that it helps train for OTB play. As to fighting to keep using one .... because he wants to and there isn't really anything wrong with it. Contrary to the discussions trying to say there is, just because there is a potential there to perform a take-back before completing the move on the electronic board.

Using your argument you can claim that it is illegal to play a Live game with chess books in the same room as you are because you can potentially look things up in them to help you. That argument is just about as nonsensical at the physical board one.

Hi Martin!

“There is no need to come to an agreement about something if it isn't really against the rules.”

Actually, that is the debate. And something can be illegal even if there no specific, written rule against it. My counter example is an alien from outer space, who has a superior intelligence, analyzes your game for you in a current game, an illegal thing? It is not specifically covered in the rules (I looked). But there are enough rules to be found in the rule book to find this space alien’s advice illegal.

“In correspondence, I don't have to tell people that I look up lines in books and databases, even if they are not aware that is perfectly legal and allowable. This situation isn't any different (with the understanding it isn't prohibited).”

I fail to see how these two things are identical. You are talking about a correspondence chess and I am talking about an Internet game. Internet games, like OTB games, usually refer to games that can be completed in one sitting.

Oatmeal’s game, by his own words, are 30 second (or 30 minute, which seem more likely) games. They, therefore, fall into the category of Internet games.

Correspondence chess has its own rules. The main differences are: (1) They have reflection times of days and games can go on for weeks, months, and sometimes years; and (2) They allow passive help (books, magazines, and one’s own notes for domestic affairs. Add active help, such as computers and engines for international games.

“The physical board doesn't confer a game advantage. “

I never claimed that. I claim a physical board confers an advantage. ANY additional advantage is still illegal.

“That is, it doesn't help the player magically find better moves; they still have to calculate and understand what is going on.”

Even if a second board only confers a moderate or small advantage, it is still illegal.

“It isn't like cheating that provides a player with moves they wouldn't have figured out on their own.”

No, but it does provide information about a position that he may or may not have had access to before he moves the pieces on his board.

“In general terms, it may provide a cognitive advantage.”

And that is an advantage. Again, any additional advantage is still illegal.

 Some people may not play as well on a 2D or electronic boards (I find the 3D pieces on most electronic boards less than useless). So, yes, a player may gain a slight advantage over the use of an electronic board.

Conversely, their opponent may actually be better on an electronic board .... I'm not going to try and claim that it really gives them a game advantage (just like my discussion on faster mouse, PC, internet etc).

To repeat, ANY advantage is still illegal. If a person really has a problem seeing a 2D board, why not just stick to correspondence chess? I too have difficulty in seeing an electronic board in an Internet speed game and my Internet connection is slow at times. So I don’t play Internet speed chess. Chess has many ways to be enjoyed, without cheating.

The other advantage is that it helps train for OTB play. As to fighting to keep using one .... because he wants to and there isn't really anything wrong with it. Contrary to the discussions trying to say there is, just because there is a potential there to perform a take-back before completing the move on the electronic board.

Any device that has the potential to be of additional help is illegal to have on you or on your table in OTB chess.  This is reasoning for having an ATD or TD to be in the same room as the team players playing another team using the Internet to transmit moves.

“Using your argument you can claim that it is illegal to play a Live game with chess books in the same room as you are because you can potentially look things up in them to help you.“

Yes, it is still illegal. A Live game can be played in one sitting, usually has rating points at stake, and I have never seen a person who claims to have a second board, books, or other resources before, during, or after a Live game. You can probably figure out why.

Now having a book on a bookcase that is far enough from a player’s reach when he sits down at his board in front of his laptop, as he cannot use the resources in the book without getting up from his laptop, is OK as he has to perform many more additional steps to get those resources.

“... argument is just about as nonsensical at the physical board one.”

You seem to thrive on ambiguities:  Internet games and correspondence games; game advantages, cognitive advantages and all other advantages; a chess book sitting to a player’s board within easy reach and a chess book in a room.

By the way, how is your Internet research going?

“Basically, the players have to say that all game rules were followed, which would allow a physical board as long as touch move was observed (which really is on the honor system) ...

Honor systems tend to lose their honesty in a competition. If everyone would honor an honor system, there would be no need for TDs (other than to make pairings and wallboards), arbitrators, and rule books.

I find it hard to believe that the players have say that all game rules were followed. What if a player refuses to agree to a rule? Maybe he doesn’t like the time control and suggests another. What would a TD do in that situation?

Oatmeal doesn’t tell his opponent about a secret second board. How can his opponent agree to something he has no knowledge about? Sounds a little bit of deceit on Oatmeal’s part. And therefore, a lie.

That's right, the rules don't cover all cases. However, if something is not prohibited, then it can be assumed it is allowed. The only real debate here is people trying to claim that the physical board is an analysis board (which it isn't, though it could potentinally be used as one).

There is no need to go through mental gymnastics to find some weird counter-examples. But yes, in the alien case, it would be illegal. Outside assistance is not allowed in Live or correspondence, doesn't matter if that is terrestrial in origin or extra-terrestrial.

Because the way the rule is worded, it is specifically covered.

Let's see, I'm talking about play on chess.com, you know, the Internet. That's why I brought it up. The thing is, I think using a physical board is legal, as does PossibleOatmeal and some others. There is no need to get your opponent's approval to use a legal resource.

It is very clear, even if he may have had a typo or two somewhere, is that he was talking about long time control games (minutes, not seconds).

No, actually you do. If something doesn't convey a game advantage it can't really be considered cheating. Faster internet connections, better computers, etc can convey advantage ... by your argument those would be cheating ... and that is ludicrous too.

Ah, the mental gymnastics are strong here. Having one board is an advantage, so having a second one, with the exact same position (pieces are not being moved and I'm giving the assumption of touch move) must give you a bigger one. I don't see how you can honestly argue that.

So you think if I had three boards with the exact same position on them I would have an even larger advantage? It does not provide more information about the position. The only possible additional information is after the move has been made. That is it. As long as players are following the rules, and that is the move made in the electronic board, then it doesn't provide any additional information that the electronic board did not already provide.

And, again, those advantages don't help the player find a move he/she wouldn't be able to find on his/her own. That is what the cheating regulations try to combat. The player is still finding the move on their own and are making it without outside information.

But again, a physical board is not illegal, in and of itself for internet play. The USCF allows the use of physical boards; the USCL allows the use of physical boards. Therefore, the use of physical boards can not be considered illegal by the rules. Therefore it is NOT cheating.

The only debate is one of trust when no TD is there to oversee that use.

I'm going to reply to the last parts in a different post. This is getting long enough as it is.

Not only was the last one getting long enough, but this part deserved its own section.

Since you keep bringing the fact that Live isn't Correspondence I have to state that this isn't OTB. And you have discounted the fact that the USCF still allows games to be played and rated even without a TD there. It isn't the perferred way, but is allowed.

The case was stated because you brought up the potential to make a move on the physical board and take it back (or the potential to do analysis even). Your main argument was that a phyiscal board allows the potential for cheating so it is illegal. That same argument can be applied to any resource that is within easy access ... that's what I was pointing out. There being the potential to cheat doesn't make something illegal or cheating.

I know, you've mostly moved on the "advantage" angle, now, but that point is still pertinent.

Not finding anything saying that physical boards are illegal. In fact, you read my posts (the ones you quoted) and all I have found is that they are allowed.

So basically, you don't trust people so no one should trust people, so by extension, physical boards should be illegal. 

As to the rules being followed, I am talking about games rated by the USCF without TDs being there. The USCF has a mechanism for that. The players play the game, the results and details are provided to the USCF and the players both agree that the rules were followed. Pretty simple really.

Again, if the use of physical boards is allowed then there is no need to divulge that information (just like I don't have to tell my opponent I'm using books and databases in correspondence).

If they are not allowed then that is a different story and as PossibleOatmeal said, he wouldn't play here anymore, if that rule exists (which it doesn't).

But this discussion has happened a number of times in these forums and thus far, I haven't seen one Staff member post that the use of a phyiscal board in Live is against the rules here. Here is the only place that matters.

You guys are talking about the fact that it's illegal to have tools on your person that can help you for OTB play at OTB games, and extending that to playing over the internet. Having a chess book in the same room, be it on a shelf or right next to you. From reading these boards, I'm pretty sure I can say with confidence that guys who play at your level use engines to study chess. - does this imply that it would be against the rules to play chess over the internet on the same computer where your engine software resides?