Rereading my post and I but see where clarification- further explanations as -  when used appropriately  should have been added. Some of it is basic- clear to myself and need not be repeated, but because everything here is being taken so literal, dissected and found fault with - yep I can see where somethings  are easily misunderstood. I’m guilty myself. BTW - what the Mod did say is - It is technically against Fair Play rules - but OK If it’s not used for analysis. I should have included the term technically- my bad. Do beginners fully understand the meaning of what makes for analysis or not? Use of a 2nd board possibly has inherent factors that new players, in the dark about potential pitfalls, fall victim to. Innocent, no intent of cheating, but nonetheless Fair play issues may come about.

That is the only rule in place for Live play regarding outside assistance - besides engine use.

I do sometimes. Sometimes I like to play "OTB" but don't have a physical opponent, so I will play someone online but pretend I am playing OTB. I only glance over at the computer to find what their next move is.

A hypothetical-

Such questions are moot if playing unrated -  and used for training purposes. Applies to rated games only.

A new player  has difficulty visualizing how the Knight moves. His coach has recommended he use a 2nd board for various reasons  - but don’t use it for analysis. Only enter the move played on your 2nd board - don’t move the pieces around.

The beginner simply has a hard time seeing where the Knight moves and has a solution. He places a penny on potential squares for Knight moves to help in visualization. He reasons he is not cheating- which some give as the definition of assistance. He is not analyzing- moving pieces about. He is not using an engine. The pennies only help him to visualize better - a primary reason a 2nd board is used. He has been told a 2nd board is perfectly fine to use if he doesn’t move the pieces about. That’s all as no further explanation is needed.

Cheating?

Assistance?

Fair Play?

No big deal - no harm no foul ?

Answer - I do not pretend to know the Fair Play Teams policy. Have an idea from my experiences.  A situation for them to make determination. Point is- dozens of such scenarios are possible. Each case individual . Hence we have a  broad, generic rule regarding Fair Play in Live Chess. Witnessed in this thread are widely differing conclusions/ assumptions about the rule that imo CC will eventually shed more light on.

I dont see why. It's not outside assistance. What light is there to shed? Of all the times people use a second board for relaying only game moves, and chess.com doesn't like it, then they will do whatever it is they want to do. Until then, it's perfectly fine. I still wonder how many times they have penalized people who admit doing it. My guess is none. 

What do I need to know about Fair Play on Chess.com?

What are the rules?

• No chess programs or engines -
• In Live Chess, no outside assistance OF ANY KIND is permitted.

So we have an assessment made by PG the use of pennies on a 2nd board helping to visualize how the Knight moves is not of any outside assistance of any kind. Are we in agreement?

(I don’t get what knowledge the general membership possesses of possible warnings has relevance too. CC never makes such matters public)

So our player who has a hard time visualizing how the Knight moves and uses pennies to mark the possible moves,  also has a bad habit of hanging his Queen. He is one clever guy and smart too with technology. He has devised a sensor attached to the Queen that whenever it’s under attack Her Crown Lights up ! No more hanging Queens ! 
No analysis, no engine use, therefor is not cheating (the definition of outside assistance)- making the practice perfectly OK . After all- it’s only about better seeing the board. No fair play issues here. Good so far?

OK - the sensor bit is far fetched. Our guy does hang his Queen frequently. The game is a long one. Lots of time to think. In doing so he sees the Queen under attack but is not ready to move as yet so he places a marker on the Queen. In case he forgets during subsequent thought. - Fair Play/ outside assistance?

I bring up such examples refuting claims made by quite the many that the meaning of outside assistance/ fair play is solely dependent on whether or not the player is moving pieces about to analyze the game in progress. There possibly are other issues - innocent, unintentional, unawares that a practice could possibly viewed in a different light .

Please read  post #286 if having not done so. Thanks for reading.

Outside assistance does not inherently mean all players will  gain benefit from it. Perhaps a practice is of use only to one - others never make consideration. Some might think no gain - no foul. I’d disagree. Look the other way - who cares- no penalties to be handed out standard reply by everyone including myself- but it doesn’t change the equation. I do not oppose the use of a 2nd board - if used properly 100 % This can be quite challenging for new players/ beginners who assuredly by their lack of experience could innocently fall into traps of improper use.

I am genuinely amazed that, what started out as a conversation starter, now has 15 pages+ about rules of fair play. 

Hey guys!

That's because it's a good topic. And a legitimate question. Quite a few people do use a real board, so it makes sense to make sure it's ok. I posted a response from over a year ago, which says it's ok. It's not outside assistance, just like a dgt board isn't either. But it could be used as outside assistance, and that's the distinction that makes it ok versus not ok. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. It's a good thing you brought up the topic. It probably needs to be addressed every so often. 

There are lots of other examples of things that are not outside assistance, but could be. A book that explains endgames is not outside assistance. It's a coaster, to put a wine glass on. BUT, if it's USED (read) during a game then it becomes assistance. Your best friend, who is watching Imposters on Netflix.  Not outside assistance. But if she give you advice (good or bad) on your position during a game, then she becomes outside assistance. So until chess.com specifically says using a real board is not allowed, it's allowed. As long as it's only for relaying exact game moves and nothing more of course.

Yes i have a physical board like 10 feet away, but i use the computer

* except what physical board to employ, maybe !  : ) ....

If one wants portability for when one does not have access to the internet and chess.com, yet wishes to be able to keep thinking clearly about Daily Matches .... here is board worthy of consideration .....

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0019F8QHO/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I suppose. But the pieces are flat. For me that would defeat the whole purpose of using a real board. I like the wooden 3d pieces, and wooden board.

Total beginner here  and perhaps this has been brought up in *15 pages* of comments. But playing longer time controls and setting up a real board and making moves on it is such common advice for beginners. 

doesn't become a bit of distraction using a board? I guess it makes sense for OTB players, they might be more used to it

Understand.... nor do i care for the flatness .... which was why i italicized "portability' as the value gained.

The use of a 2nd board requires sometimes challenging, ethical choices to be made. New players/ beginners especially may not be aware of possible pitfalls making totally innocent errors of practice.

Before jumping into the practice I simply suggest becoming aware/knowledgeable and should be playing unrated games until comfortable and Fully informed.

Even then ....

Example - long standing members, well respected and SA’s for many Clubs can be observed knowingly breaking the rules regarding posting - expressing political and religious views. The draw is powerful, the temptation great, they do it anyways knowing full well it is against the rules and the topic will be locked. The opportunity is present. Will they be sanctioned/warned? Never unless it is observed has a habitual habit.

The advice - the practice is “perfectly” Ok - just don’t use it for analysis - makes for a disservice. “Perfectly” implies considerations need not be made and assumes an understood definition of what makes for analysis is had.