The Unacceptable Flaw with Chess.com: Use of Game Explorer/DB in Vote/Turn Chess

DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR TURN BASED OPPONENT CAN LEGALLY PLAY THE WORLD'S BEST CHESS MOVE AGAINST YOU FOR THE ENTIRE OPENING?  That as long as you stay in book (which means making a good move), they can choose the most preferred move from the collection of Masters and Grandmasters since the 1800s against you?  That they can choose the move knowing whether it leads to a win, loss, or draw?  And all of this is allowed by the Chess.com rules?

There is a preoccupation, a fixation with cheating on chess.com with what I suppose is the question: “Did my opponent use a computer in the middle game to make the best move?”  I think, if this type of cheating occurs, it is minor in comparison to what is allowed and widespread on chess.com: the use of the Game Explorer during the course of Vote Chess and Turn Based Chess.

Let's illustrate what we are talking about:

Analysis of Chess.com Rules on Use of Game Explorer/Opening Database (DB)

The first issue to analyze is what are the rules, and it now seems clear that the rules allow the use of it, despite differing language on multiple pages:

1. The Chess.com Legal Page (http://www.chess.com/legal) is the most definitive statement of what are the rules.  It says that opening DBs are allowed in both vote chess and turn based chess.

   “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.”

2.  The Vote Chess FAQ (http://www.chess.com/votechess/help) states: “Can I use computers or outside help in my Vote Chess game? 

The default stance is that computers and outside help are NOT allowed! However, if a game is going to allow computer or outside help it will be clearly noted in the game description.”

By the use of "outside help" it would seem to imply that opening DBs would not be allowed, and as this is found on the FAQ for Vote Chess, it would seem to govern.  However, with the strong and clear statement of the legal statement in bullet a, and with the interpretation that since the Game Explorer is internal to chess.com it is not "outside help", it too doesn't outlaw it.

c.  Rules on Playing ( https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444774-what-are-the-rules-for-playing-) page states:

“•Outside assistance from other people, computers/chess engines, or endgame tablebases is entirely prohibited

•In turn-based chess, You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). for opening moves.”

This seems to be the commonly used argument that Vote Chess is a type of turn-based chess, and therefore, the Game Explorer/Opening DB is allowed.  However, without the clear (but relatively hidden) language from the Legal Webpage specified in Bullet A, I Bullet B would govern under the legal principle of "Proper Law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_law) because it is more specific to Vote Chess than Bullet C which only speaks about Turn Based Chess.  Under that scenario, the issue would rest on the ambiguous expression of "outside help" which should properly be interpreted as external to the game, but could be interpreted as external to Chess.com.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that the Chess.com rules allow the use of the Game Explorer in Vote Chess and Turn Based Chess, so debating the rules is not in order.  What is in order is debating whether the rule is right.  And I argue, that we all know, as game players and chess players, that this rule is not right.

The Horror of the Game Explorer to Fair Play

Let me say what my understanding of what this Game Explorer/Opening DB truly is:

• For the first 1-20 most critical moves of a chess game where the structure of a game is established and in the vast majority of sub-1800 level games an advantage is established by one side or the other, players are making a selection based upon a collection of master+ played moves.  A single grandmaster is probably better than a chess program given a short time on a personal computer (perhaps not, but close), so therefore, it is roughly equivalent to using computer help.

• But worse than this, this is not one master, but this is a collection of thousands of masters and what they thought was the best move.  It is that vast brainpower over 100+ years at the given position by the best chess players in the world.

• Even worse than that, this is utilizing the best possible method of analysis, judging what is the best move based upon the ultimate outcome of the game.  This is not subjective analysis of the best move based upon tactics or positional theory, it is empirical evidence of what leads to either a win or a loss.  It is the ultimate truth of what's the best move utilizing I believe Monte Carlo analysis that Rybka has begun to utilize.  There truly is no intelligent choice but to follow that table religiously.

• If allowed, then the logical outcome of what the first 20 moves of vote chess should be an initial positing of what are the moves from the Opening DB, and then players choosing one of the options. 

• Truly, it is a statistical question of analyzing the win/loss/draw #s, and the position is rather irrelevant.  Any discussion of moves outside of those listed is obviously discussing moves that are inferior.Therefore, actually the discussion on vote chess is really not important.  It’s analyzing the numbers.  Here is a sample of analysis along those lines: "For the way I look at it: there are two moves listed that have a sufficient # of played moves to feel secure in them (greater than 1000 games).  Nxd4 and Qxd4.  Clearly Nxd4 is the vast majority.  We want to win, so Nxd4 wins 4% of the time more of the time.  Between being played by the majority of masters/GMs, and winning 4% of the time more, it is the preferred move.  Therefore, the move to play is Nxd4.  I don't need to consider any discussion or even look at the board, because frankly, my analysis, and all of your analysis unless there is a GM contributing, is weaker than the ultimate truth of the opening DB: what was played by thousands of GMs and what their decision led to, win/loss/draw."

In the interest of being somewhat fair, there are advantages of allowing the opening DB to be used in vote chess: increasing knowledge of commonly played lines; the info will be used and distributed anyway in one form or another; it is extremely informative, and probably many more good reasons.  But none of these reasons make allowing the use of the Game Explorer fair between teams, supportive of the mission of vote chess to encourage choosing a move based upon collaborative discussion, or encouraging education through explantion.

Now, these same arguments apply to turn based chess.  It is simply appalling to me that in one of the activities that I use Chess.com most, multi-day turn-based chess, my opponents could be using the opening DB for the first 20 moves.  Unfortunately for them, I’m not a good enough player to stay in book for that long, but, until I leave book, they can legally choose the best move by using the opening DB.  This is outrageous and completely defeats the whole principle of two human players testing their chess skills out on the board without help.  Do your study beforehand, and analyze the game with Game Explorer afterwards--not while you're playing. 

The counter-argument that I have been given is that in the days when chess players sent post cards to each other, correspondence chess, it was permitted to consult books.  It should not have been the rule then, and it most certainly should not be the rule now, on the Internet, with a Game Explorer that provides this much information this quickly and this easily.

If I’m playing a game of chess with a person, and on move 5, they pull out MCO to pick move 6, I’m gonna quit the game.  You would not put with someone consulting a book/software in a live personal game you're playing that you care about.  It is very surprising to me that the strongest chess players, the ones who have put in the most time to memorize the openings and understand the purpose behind each move would support this crutch.  It runs counter to the entire theme of anti-cheating.  It frankly blows my mind that is allowed on this website. 

And it really is a shame, because there is something special about Chess.com.  About tens of thousands of chess players from the U.S, Iran, North Korea, and every country regardless of international relationship, with Chess Mentor and so many features, and so many sparks of beauty to allow such an obvious outrage to go on for years.  

Here are other previous threads on it:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/poll---game-assistance

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/using-books--databases-for-playing-turn-based 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/should-opening-books-be-allowed

http://www.chess.com/article/view/concerning-the-use-of-opening-tables-and-other-learning-tools 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-there-an-unwritten-rule-against-using-a-database

It is unacceptable to me, meaning that I will not continue to pay for Chess.com if that is the rule.  If you agree with me, I encourage you to contact support and let them know, and ultimately, let them know with your money.

Hey man, the chessbase may get you through the opening, but it's practically impossible to get through the middlegame with that.  Most people actually use an engine, get caught, and get banned(there's a large number, see chess.com/cheating).  So the flaw is small enough that its negligible.

I will post additional slices on this until there are more contributors.  I am so passionate on this subject at the moment.  I am so convinced that I am right.

I believe that Chess.com has enough players, enough influence that it can lead the chess world to abandon this absurd, ridiciculous, outdated, nonsensical, contradictory, stupid, destructive and every negative word rule.  You mean to say that because some 1850 Correspondence Chess Organization decided that people should be able to look at chess books, now players should be able to look at tables that provide the best possible analysis of the current position to decide on their move at a moment's notice, sometimes up to move 15?  I don't know how far it goes, but in some standard queen pawn games, there can be nearly hundreds of thousands of games in the database with variations in the database going pretty damn far into the game.

Forget the USCF, forget FIDE, ignore whatever correspondence organization there are now.  What needs to be decided is what make sense now for internet chess.  And what does it matter if a game is played in 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or 1 day between moves, 2 day between moves, or 3 days between moves?  It doesn't matter, it's all the same.  It's imaginary lines to justify nonsense.

Chess.com can lead the chess world with its tens of thousands of daily users, and say, the most important thing on our site is the contest between humans regardless of the structure of the match.  And the integrity of each match will be protected, and just like we diligently investigate cheating in the middle of the match, we investigate cheating at the beginning of the match.

And a rule that outlawed accessing openings would only facilitate Chess.com's ability to detect regular cheaters.  Based upon chess ability, an algorithm could be created to create a threshold level over which a player at a certain level just wouldn't play that amount of "book" moves. For example, a 1300 level player is not going to play book moves 7 moves deep into their games more than 50% of the time.  Not possible.

The Counter-Arguments

1) Live chess and correspondence chess are fundamentally different things.  The extra time of Turn-Based Chess is intended to allow fulll analysis of the position including referencing books.  

Response: I dealt with this extensively in my 2nd post.  But I'll deal with it again since it is parroted.

• Laws change.  Constitutions get amended.  Regulations change.  A smart society finds errors in how it is running things based upon its rules, and then makes changes.  Blind loyalty to tradition is just foolishness.  Whereever this correspondence rule came from does not mean that it should apply to Internet Chess.  Therefore, Chess.com should have no problem abandoning this rule if it finds that it does not make sense and that it violates other principles and creates problems which it surely does.
• There is a fundamental difference in consulting a 1920 openings book, or even the the MCO versus accessing the Game Explorer.  The Game Explorer is simply too powerful.  I am not arguing that it should be removed from Chess.com, but it should not be available during games.  The Game Explorer lists all good candidate moves, lists the number of masters/GMs playing that moves, breaks down the percentages of the ultimate outcome of that move (totally unavailable from a book).  It is ultimate knowledge about the opening, and what move a person should play.  It is too powerful.  But, frankly, I don't think that if I were playing postal chess, or true correspondence chess, a player should be accessing any book either. Playing and analyzing/studying should be separate activities.  I love to talk about a game when I'm playing it if I have a opponent who is into that, but Chess.com is built around competitive games, and competition is based on training, and then executing on that training.
• Turn-Based Chess is not fundamentally different than Live Chess.  The extra time is either used by players to play an enormous number of turn based games, or to give them time to stretch out a game.  It is a rare player who truly ponders their move, looking at the board, and then coming back to it multiple times, doing some in-depth analytical process, and then finally moving.  The reality is when a player in a turn-based game has a few minutes, they look at the board, and make their move, not unlike playing a live 15 minute or 30 minute or longer game.  There is nothing fundamentally different about the game.
• Even if there was something fundamentally different between the two types of games, it still would not justify violating the fundamental principle of game playing that 5 year olds know: you come up with the move on your own.  As ten year olds when you were playing chess, and somebody watching tried to help you or your opponent, somebody rightfully screamed/objected because the principles of game playing were being violated.  The Game Explorer likewise violates the fundamental principles of game playing.
• By the way I object to calling Turn Based Chess "Correspondence Chess".  Chess.com doesn't call it that.  Nothing gets mailed.

That's the way correspondence chess is and there is nothing wrong with it.  This evens the playing field regarding theory and gives incentive for players to find novelties if they see a statistical landmine coming regarding move-orders.    The use of books is and should be allowed for correspondence chess and thus there is no reason to ban databases.  The only exception, in my opinion, is tablebases.  And I believe they are illegal to use in any format on chess.com and other chess sites(unless its centaur).  

You could play 1.a4 2. h4 if it bothers you that much. Instantly out of book, and problem solved!

Or you could just play live chess if you don't want to play online chess according to the rules of online chess.

Another idiot who never heard of correspondence chess.  Well, it's been over a month since the last fool so I guess we were due. 

EDIT:  Sorry, you caught me in a bad mood.  You're not an idiot or a fool, but you really should do some research before posting.

Just because I might play the statistically best moves for a specific opening doesn't mean that I know how to play the positions that result from such moves.  Blindly following any opening database without understanding the basic ideas behind the moves is worse than playing inaccurate moves whose resulting positions you understand well.

A player that uses an opening database well will still do their own analysis of several of the top choices, and pick the one that feels right for them, even if it is not statistically the "best" move.

Another problem with blindly following an opening database is that the data may be stale - for example, there might be a move that used to be common but was recently shown to be flawed.  This move might still show up in the database as having a high winning percentage, but people who know the opening well and are well versed in current theory will know how to beat it.

THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF DISALLOWING USE OF GAME EXPLORER IN TURN-BASED CHESS AND VOTE CHESS

1. While a game is in progress, the option to click the button "Explore" from the Analysis screen is removed.
2. Chess.com posts on its homepage, and sends notification to all members that effective immediately, "Use of Game Explorer for any active game position is not allowed while the game is in progress."
3. Chess.com sends notification to all Vote Chess administrators that they are to remove any posting of Game Explorer screenshots in the discussion of moves.  Failure to do so would lead to forfeiture by that team in that game.
4. Chess.com begins developing an algorithm to assess cheating by accessing openings during play.  There is a direct relationship between player ability and level of knowledge of openings.  As stated on their FAQ on Cheating, they have developed fairly complicated algorithms on cheating, and I'm sure they would figure it out.
5. Chess.com develops two separate sides to its website: 1) playing side; 2) analysis and learning side

The worst thing about chess com to me right now is that The game explorer does not keep track of personal games, i.e. win loss draw percentange for each opening line. I dont know how hard that would be to make functional but it would be interesting enough to buy a membership for.

+1

Turn based chess is for studying. If you want to play in an environment where these tools are not supposed to be used, you can play live chess. Also, you don't even have to use the tools if you don't want in turn based games.

Oh, I thought competing was for competing.

Why do you care? Nobody is forcing you to play Online Chess here. You can easily play Live Chess. Everyone who plays Online Chess is well aware of these things and know they all have equal access to them.

BTW - Why are you making such a big deal about the explorer but leaving the analysis option alone? It seems to me, based on your 'logic', it should be scritinized as well.

There's like this psychological reflexive illogical defense of this rule by the strongest players who know the openings best!  It really doesn't make sense, other than you have become dependent on it.

Read what I wrote.

Yeah, I read what you wrote. It was difficult to finish because of laughing, but I made it.

Those who choose to use it as a learning tool do not become dependent on it. In fact, for me, it has greatly improved my openings in live play. So I think your 'logic' on that point is flawed as well.

It doesn't make sense why you are so vehemently opposed to the game explorer...as others have stated...play live chess!  That's what its for. Your sensationalistic posts don't add to your credibility either.  

One of the reasons I object to it, is when I roll my mouse over your name, the one rating Chess.com chooses to display is your "online" (not "correspondence", not "turn-based", not "learning") rating is 1641 & 1844 respectively which is based on accessing the last 100 year of GM moves for your openings, while you, and higher ranked people frankly steal points from more honest players who actually play the game on their own like it is meant to be played.

But you are following the rules.  And the rules are wrong.  That is what I am saying.

You still fail to the grasp the simple concept of correspondence chess.  This is the format.  

Laws change.  Constitutions get amended.  Regulations change.  A smart society finds errors in how it is running things based upon its rules, and then makes changes.

-Yes, but they also keep the useful ones. Just because cars can go 120mph and alot of people want to drive does not mean the speed laws should be changed.

There is a fundamental difference in consulting a 1920 openings book, or even the the MCO versus accessing the Game Explorer.  The Game Explorer is simply too powerful.

- The Game Explorer is based on the same system as any ECO book - opening moves that have been researched and have 'made the grade' and used by the strongest players. It is not any more 'powerful' than any ECO book. In fact, I have Batsford Chess Openings 2 published in1982 and, with few exceptions, it has the same moves the Game Explorer has.

Turn-Based Chess is not fundamentally different than Live Chess.  The extra time is either used by players to play an enormous number of turn based games, or to give them time to stretch out a game.  It is a rare player who truly ponders their move, looking at the board, and then coming back to it multiple times, doing some in-depth analytical process, and then finally moving.

- This is your opinion, not fact. I know LOTS of players here who actually use the Online Chess system for learning and only play a few games. Not to 'stretch out the game' but so they can learn to improve their thinking and planning in chess. Most of the game IS NOT the opening. Even the Game Explorer usually does not give any reliable moves past about 10. And most games go at least 20 moves. So that is at least another 10 moves that have to be done 'on-the-fly'.

Even if there was something fundamentally different between the two types of games, it still would not justify violating the fundamental principle of game playing that 5 year olds know: you come up with the move on your own.

- Even in live games between strong players, they are using moves that they have memorized for the first 10 or so moves. So, basically, you are saying that even in live games, we need to make-up our own moves rather than follow known lines.