Oh wait, this could be considered outside assistance........................
How many of you play games online, but have a physical board right next to you?
Sort:
Oct 15, 2020
0
#282
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Note the link provided was last updated today!
Wording has been changed/ subtle differences- clarification made addressing “outside assistance” among them. It now reads “outside help” and not outside assistance. Assistance was often referred to as meaning engine use. “help” encompasses a broader spectrum to my eyes .
Have to say: I don't get that, even in connotation.
Oct 15, 2020
0
#285
EnergeticHay wrote:
I don't believe that having a physical board next to you helps
For some people, it helps with visualization; for some, it doesn't. It depends on the person.
2Ke21-0 wrote:
EnergeticHay wrote:
I don't believe that having a physical board next to you helps
For some people, it helps with visualization; for some, it doesn't. It depends on the person.
Absolutely. Some people are used to a 2d screen, so for them it probably doesn't help visualization. Plus it would just be an unneeded distraction, wasting time. But for me the main reason is it helps with visualization. Chess was meant to be played in 3d, with real pieces on a real board. So anything that helps further the real experience makes the game more enjoyable.
Now for the real point-
it matters in the least what you or I define as help. Not one bit. Not the final interpretation. We don’t posses the info.
What matters is what CC wants to define it as. It’s a great tool - one written so that cases can be individually assessed. Determination of innocent mistake or abuse for any situation. CC can define help in way way seen fit and possibly enforce an issue by a strict definition. Good stuff
If done by humans and not bots !
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Now for the real point-
it matters in the least what you or I define as help. Not one bit.
What matters is what CC wants to define it as. It’s a great tool - one written so that cases can be individually assessed. Determination of innocent mistake or abuse for any situation. CC can define help in way way seen fit and possibly enforce an issue by a strict definition. Good stuff
Yes. They can define it any way they want. If they want to say using a clock is help, then they can say that. If they want to say using brown pieces is help, or assistance, they can say that. They can say assistance, or help, is ANYTHING they want to say it is.
But chances are they are not going to say using a real board for relaying only exact game moves is forbidden. For the same reason they are probably not going to say using brown pieces is help. Both help with visualization (for some people), and both are definitely help (assistance). But I have a feeling that's not the kind of help or assistance they are talking about.
Your overly concerned, needlessly about something I fail to get. The term assistance got to be interpreted as cheating hence engine use. That anything other than an engine was not possibly of assistance. This conveys the wrong message. Help is a better term I’d say as it does away with the notion that possible issues don’t exist if it’s not cheating.
I think it’s new the suggestion of learning to play only the board in front of you. Like interpreting the Constitution strict/loosely
PG - they are talking about a 2nd board and everything else under the Sun. A 2nd board easily offers a readily available tool to move pieces about. This happens. So a rule is place. Enforcement is possible if caught For All things possibly of help. You seem to think it’s all about 2nd boards only. There’s a wide range of issues.
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
PG - they are talking about a 2nd board and everything else under the Sun. A 2nd board easily offers a readily available tool to move pieces about. This happens. So a rule is place. Enforcement is possible if caught For All things possibly of help. You seem to think it’s all about 2nd boards only. There’s a wide range of issues.
Well yes, I do think it's all about second boards. That is the topic. The topic isn't using brown pieces, or engines, or clocks. The topic is about using a physical board.
Please ! The current discussion is about an updated policy, which includes 2nd boards during live play. What I meant is you appear to be stating the revised policy never was or is not about any possibility a 2 bd board is of assistance ditto for the new. A 2 bd board is not mentioned- therefor it is “perfectly Ok” In a few cases where it is abused- it is not perfectly ok. A rule is in place to address those issues and any other issues. Staff must be dealing with 100’s of cases daily - all kinds of issues that fall in the category of help and have nothing to do with 2nd boards. But sometimes they do.
A section deals with very specific cases - cut and dry . The section addressing help covers everything else. Cases require evidence gathering, considerations for intent, severity, warnings, no action necessary, sanctions. Every case individual. The percentage related to 2nd board issues (and not general use of) have to be very small. As it is undetectable- unless by live video perhaps. We can only hope the process is not delegated to the bots who are taking over !
Martin_Stahl wrote:
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Obviously Jamie - you are ill-informed regarding howrules are written.
No specific list is ever put in writing. It’s upon the cheat detection team to determine if any advantage is being gained.
If using a 2nd board and Every move made exactly copies the move made on the 2nd board - then it’s not much of an advantage. However, by 1st seeing the move in a 2nd board and in the process of entering that move on the playing board - perhaps the slightest advantage is gained for some players.
The main point is - players need to be on their honor and never ever take back the move played on the 2nd board.
CC is not about to endorse the practice or say it is OK by requesting players not to abuse it. It is a chess related tool , one that can be easily abused. Placing such a tool at player’s fingertips and asking them to be good boys and girls is not how it works.
Rules are simply written. Since the rule can not be enforced unless directly seen it’s suggested - a reminder given not to use the 2nd for analysis, not for a single move. This does not mean the practice is ok, endorsed or permission given.
This issue is not a “big deal” in that no one will be banned for the practice. It remains technically a practice that’s against the rules of Fair Play - a 2nd board is directly related to chess material. OTB and online - same rule . Chess related material is not to be brought to the table. Players can argue all they want that it’s not giving them an advantage. Moot point. None is allowed.
I haven't read the whole topic yet but the use of a physical board in Live isn't really any different than using a DGT or Square-Off board. Using the Confirm Move option in Live on the app provides just as much extra "assistance" as does moving the piece on the physical board and then doing the same move on the electronic board.
No one is going to be banned for using a physical board to play Live chess. It is undetectable and unenforceable. Someone using a physical board should make the move online that they did on the board, from an ethical standpoint and should not move pieces to analyze. The only way someone could be banned for use of a physical board (that isn't something like a DGT), is if they were in an event that used cameras to monitor play and that would be at the discretion of the organizer if that was allowed or not (and what requirements would need to be met).
When asked directly this is the best response We can receive. Martin is likely the best authority and in the best position to answer for CC.
My claim about not being allowed should be elaborated on. I stand by it - nowhere is the use of a 2nd board mentioned in writing- either allowing one or disallowing one . Perhaps read twice.
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Obviously Jamie - you are ill-informed regarding howrules are written.
No specific list is ever put in writing. It’s upon the cheat detection team to determine if any advantage is being gained.
If using a 2nd board and Every move made exactly copies the move made on the 2nd board - then it’s not much of an advantage. However, by 1st seeing the move in a 2nd board and in the process of entering that move on the playing board - perhaps the slightest advantage is gained for some players.
The main point is - players need to be on their honor and never ever take back the move played on the 2nd board.
CC is not about to endorse the practice or say it is OK by requesting players not to abuse it. It is a chess related tool , one that can be easily abused. Placing such a tool at player’s fingertips and asking them to be good boys and girls is not how it works.
Rules are simply written. Since the rule can not be enforced unless directly seen it’s suggested - a reminder given not to use the 2nd for analysis, not for a single move. This does not mean the practice is ok, endorsed or permission given.
This issue is not a “big deal” in that no one will be banned for the practice. It remains technically a practice that’s against the rules of Fair Play - a 2nd board is directly related to chess material. OTB and online - same rule . Chess related material is not to be brought to the table. Players can argue all they want that it’s not giving them an advantage. Moot point. None is allowed.
I haven't read the whole topic yet but the use of a physical board in Live isn't really any different than using a DGT or Square-Off board. Using the Confirm Move option in Live on the app provides just as much extra "assistance" as does moving the piece on the physical board and then doing the same move on the electronic board.
No one is going to be banned for using a physical board to play Live chess. It is undetectable and unenforceable. Someone using a physical board should make the move online that they did on the board, from an ethical standpoint and should not move pieces to analyze. The only way someone could be banned for use of a physical board (that isn't something like a DGT), is if they were in an event that used cameras to monitor play and that would be at the discretion of the organizer if that was allowed or not (and what requirements would need to be met).
When asked directly this is the best response We can receive. Martin is likely the best authority and in the best position to answer for CC.
My claim about not being allowed should be elaborated on. I stand by it - nowhere is the use of a 2nd board mentioned in writing- either allowing one or disallowing one . Perhaps read Martin twice . Mine needs trimming.
Who’s the biggest organizer? ChessCom.
There are naturally many things that will not be specifically listed in such policies. Anyone who has written policy knows this and understands the practical reasons why. not to mention the impossibility of any real enforcement mechanism. It doesn't make sense to read too much into that, either way.
The change from the term "assistance" to "help" could be fraught with meaning, but it could also just be a simplification, using a more common term when one is available. I see zero difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, or at least not any that seem relative here (assistance is obviously derived from Latin; help goes back to Old English, etc)
To my mind, the best evidence is that chess.com has no issue with DGT, Certabo, etc boards being used, and there are clubs that openly suggest this for slow games, so it seems significantly less likely they would object to a 2nd board. However, I assume those boards would recognize if a user started using the board for analysis where that can't be tracked with a standard physical board.
But then again, I don't have nearly the seemingly emotional investment in this issue it appears some do. So unless chess.com chooses to specifically list using a physical board as a problem, the evidence strongly suggests it is OK.
I agree. Help and assistance are synonyms. They mean the same thing. Look up the word help, first definition is assistance. Look up the word assistance, the first definition is help. Chess.com says using a second, or real, board is ok for relaying exact game moves and nothing else so to me that's pretty much the end of the issue.
There are many separate categories that fall under this section. An open section that covers everything left out in previous ones which dealt with specific issues - mostly engine use.
As stated - it is necessary to understand how rules are written. In this category -there are dozens of separate issues. It is not going to be put in writing - this is allowed/this is not. Once one example is made - the can of worms is opened. There is one rule that covers everything. Read it.
Another thing greatly misunderstood- it’s assumed help and assistance mean gaining an advantage to win the game. Anything else is not of help- since the player gained nothing/wasn’t cheating.
This is not necessarily so. Many mistakes being made are actually practices or habits that are a disadvantage- but they remain against the spirit of the rule. A slap on the wrist. But when abused strong measures are due.
Note the link provided was last updated today!
Wording has been changed/ subtle differences- clarification made addressing “outside assistance” among them. It now reads “outside help” and not outside assistance. Assistance was often referred to as meaning engine use. “help” encompasses a broader spectrum to my eyes .