Allowing engines in tournaments

Hi.

I know that some professional players use engines to help them. My question is:

Why is it forbidden for them to use the engines while they play (as a way to complement their game). This way it would be fair for everybody, and it would end the illegal use of engines, because it would be allowed.

In my opinion engines should be allowed in order to make the sport more clean. A great mathematician it is still great even if he uses a calculator.

If I may offer an analogy, there are sports practice machines that kick, throw, block, catch, etc. better than humans can.  Their purpose is to reduce human error during practice so that the athlete trying to improve spends more quality time during practice.  But if he was allow to use those machines in place of himself, it would not be him performing, it would be him as the servant assisting the machines' performance.

Similarly, a strong player might use an engine to explore different opening variations in a time frame where the engine only has to use 1 minute or less per move, allowing the human player to get more done in the same time.  But if he's allowed to use an engine in an actual game, then he's not playing, the engine is.

1. Everyone would be rated 3400.

2. Its cheating.

3. I want to play PEOPLE.  I look forward to playing another HUMAN BEING, seeing new places, meeting new friends, meeting up with old friends.  An engine gives you none of that.  

1. ELO rating is not absolute, and if everybody is armed with a computer, then it'll be computer_ability + human_ability = your_rating.  There are differences in strengths in chess programs and people, so there'll still be the same ELo ratings.

2. It wouldn't be cheating if the rules allow it.  In fact, when I didn't know much about OTB tournaments, I wasn't sure about if players are allowed to consult computers because I remember reading about some game where the Soviet player consulted some people and made a move (and still lost).  So, today, why not a computer.

3. If I understand the OP correctly, he's not saying playing against the computer but to have the option of a human player consult the computer during play.  So, you've still got a human to look at.

troll alert!

He believed me when i told him i wouldnt use the engine for every move.

Or... no one would be rated over 1500...

What you're describing is a variant of chess called Centaur Chess or "Advanced Chess"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

I think the game I'm thinking about is

1971 Taimanov vs Fischer, but I can't find the reference where Taimanov consulted others during the game.  So... maybe that's not the correct game.  Does anybody know ?

Centaur chess is obsolete, chess engines are way stronger than they ever been. Now it can find the best move possible, in any position and not just candidate moves.. 

You are older than you've ever been : )

Take component A, add improvement, it's better than it's ever been.  If chess programs can find the best move, then it'll never lose to anybody or anything (or to itself).  It'll have solved the chess problem.

Not quite.  Engines still have some weaknesses.  For example, while their tactical vision is flawless, their position understanding is good but not perfect.  So a strong (master-level) player can still bring something to the table there.

Additionally, engines will ignore certain moves if they look unpromising after a few plies; this is so they don't waste time on nonsense moves and can instead look deeper at the lines that look more interesting.  However, occasionally this means they overlook a sacrifice with long-term compensation that doesn't appear immediately.  A strong human can force the engine to analyse these lines more deeply to see if they do turn positive at sufficient depth.

Because of things like this, a strong human player who knows how to make the most effective use of his engine will tend to beat a patzer who just spits out engine moves.  So centaur chess is still meaningful, for now.

No, they still need human help to find the best moves in some positions.

Sometimes they even suggest obviously bad moves at first, you have to give them a long time to think.

Thanx for the clarification @ MGleason

Probably not, I read a study that said (not sure how true this it is) that if Carlsen played against the top computer, he would score just over 5%

Engines 3400

Carlsen 2850

Well, SF > Carlsen in a game of course, but computers don't have FIDE ratings, just saying.