Ethical to use the "analyse" tool?

Just wondering what you guy's opinions were on using the "anaylse board" tool during non-live games.

Could it be considered unethical to use, since in real matches players are never allowed to physically move their pieces around the board and test different lines, and because it allows players with poor board vision to level the playing field against stronger opponents?

I use it very often  and don't consider it unethical. In correspondence chess in the past they used postcards. People could set up the game on a chessboard at their homes and analyse it just as we do at the analysis board.

yes becasue it is part of correspondance chess

Perfectly ethical, I think - because in real traditional correspondence chess games, players were able to (& expected to) "tinker" with relevant positions on a physical chess board.  This is a form of correspondence chess, not an uber-slow version of OTB.

To me, the more interesting question is whether it's desirable to have an analysis board that can enforce legal moves. ("Oops, I guess I won't be able to do that after all, because - oh yeah, that piece is pinned. Didn't see that.")  That's a genuine deviation from tradition - and clearly goes a bit beyond providing a simple visualization aid.

There's nothing to stop a player from setting up a board and pieces and analyzing a position offline. If the analysis feature is a part of the website, those who choose to use it may do so for the same purpose. It's all the same in my view.

Nothng "unethical" about it, persey *depending on any/all agreed upon "rules" between the players*

All the fancy settings seem to wear Ish out .. and confuse Ish .. used to use Conditional Moves on GK .. but lately, it just wears Ish out to bother with it

Good point, but then you'd probably have to change entire playing interface as it also enforce legal moves only.

And you would need to introduce some kind of penalties, similar to those in OTB chess (for irregular moves).

Actually, a ways back, we DID have a totally free-form analysis board (similar to what you get now if you uncheck the "Legal moves" box on the AB window) - for about one day. 

But there was great public outcry, gnashing of teeth & wringing of hands from a highly vocal.. minority (?), after which legal-move enforcement was brought back as the default behavior, with the then-brand-new "Legal moves" checkbox in tow. 

Admittedly, I still feel mostly as I did at the time: Adding an option to turn off legal-move enforcement - and only on MY analysis board - sort of misses the point. Why would anyone devote an extra click to handicap themselves (even in such a small way) relative to their opponents?

Anyway, it's just a small, mostly philosophical, complaint.   Everyone here has recourse to the same tools, so fair's fair!

Well said, the "Tools", which is what they are intended as, are open to most/all .. and offered by Chess.com .. so clearly they aren't considered "Cheats"

Is it ethical to let younger students use a calculator on the SAT's?

I've been wondering the same thing for a while and I appreciate the comments about correspondence chess, which is pretty new to me.  I'm also wondering what are people's thought on the "Explore" option during non-live games.  This shows what the most played moves are for your given position as well as the statistics for white wins, black wins, and draws.  Is this considered a form of computer cheating?  Is it ethical to be studying opening lines on a game you are currently playing, say 3 moves in?  Note that when I say studying, I mean by means other than you moving the pieces yourself.

Here's a handy summary of the site rules ...

so that we can get back to discussing 'ethics'.

It would be more accurate to ask "Is it ethical to let someone use their textbook during an open-book test?"  The resource is allowed and not using it just puts you at a disadvantage, unnecessarily.  The key is knowing how to make the most efficient use of the resources available.  It does you no good to waste your time reading the entire textbook to find the answer to every question, just like it does you no good to blindly trust the stats in an opening database.

That single sentence may be the clearest statement I've seen on this recurring topic.

I don't consider it unethical because in correspondence games which may have 1 week per turn time limits, sometimes I have to come back & refresh my memory as to what I plan to play.  But in an OTB game you're not coming back to a game after a few days and have the board still right in front of you.

Now I will say that the analysis board here on chess.com may act as a handicap to OTB play if you rely on it too much, since you may not be able to visualize the plays that well if you have something on which to play them out.  So in OTB games, unless you have a separate chess board with which to play out possible moves on, you have to visualize them in your mind.  But that in no way makes the analysis board ethical/unethical to use. 

There is a disconnect in your analgy. Certain calculators are indeed banned on the SAT, ACT, FE, PE and numerous other tests, because they are too powerful and can do all of the work in place of the student. Also, reading a text-book involves time, but using the database involves trust. In most cases, students absolutely can trust their textbooks to give them correct answers, and they can certainly trust game databases if they know 1) the rating of the players involved, 2) the win percentages of certain lines, 3) the number of games used to calculate the percentage. It is all statistics, and the accuracy of statistics increases with greater volumes of data, e.g., more games.

The question now is (since the board analysis issue has been cleared up) is whether or not using game databases and opening books during correspondence play is actually ethical. I personally would question it, because with the availability and size of current chess databases, and with the quantity of opening books out there, I could essentially go half a game without ever having to think or make a move for myself. And how is that any different than having a computer program choose your moves for you? Yes, it takes a bit longer, it could still become a delegation of your decision making to inanimate objects, just like using a program.

When your opponent starts a game with "you," he has a right to exect to actually play "you" and not a program or a book or a database, does he not?

Hi to Oaklahoma - I like the point about playing 'you' as in your opponent. However with opening study running to 10 , 15 even 20 moves - are you ever playing the opponent - or are you sometimes playing Kasparov - through the memory of your opponent ? I have lost games and somethimes thought - hey that's from a book - every move.

Well, in some of Silman's books he writes about analyzing your current position and trying to find your "dream position" from there. Removing the legal move option allows you to move your pieces into any position, without moving your opponents pieces. So you can see your dream position and see/analyze if you can get to it, even with your opponent trying to stop you. Might be one way to use it.

Your effort to bust the analogy fails because you understand neither the accuracy of textbooks nor the nature of open book tests. I give open book exams in which students are expected to have a grasp of the strengths and weaknesses of the stack of books they have read--and every book has errors. These tests require not simple right or wrong answers, but judgement and evaluation of competing ideas that seem plausible. Such exams are very much like well-fought chessgames, especially those in which players have access to databases.