Game Explorer and Cheating

Sorry Guys I agree with Button C on this one. I have no problem with researching the game but not to gain an advantage over your opponent

Baseballfan wrote: reddawg wrote: Why is there any type of game help allowed to be used?

 To be honest, I'm not really sure, but it's been a part of "slow" chess for as far back as I can find evicence for it. Ever since people started playing postal chess, which eventually evolved into the turn-based chess we have now, research type assistance has been allowed.

There are two very good reasons why books and databses are allowed in this style of chess.

1. A game could last a very long time. It is unreasonable to ban a person from studying and researching chess during the whole of that time.

2. It would be impossible to detect the use of books or databases.

londonplayer wrote:

Sorry Guys I agree with Button C on this one. I have no problem with researching the game but not to gain an advantage over your opponent

What other purpose could there be for researching the game? I am certainly not going to put in any work to be put at a disadvanatge!

We all have our own views on this matter. Personally I play with the knowledge I have retained outside of play but not be in a middle of a game and just because you dont know what move to make you use other peoples ideas. If one chooses to do this and then you win the game who actually won it you or the books you researched.

londonplayer wrote:

We all have our own views on this matter. Personally I play with the knowledge I have retained outside of play but not be in a middle of a game and just because you dont know what move to make you use other peoples ideas. If one chooses to do this and then you win the game who actually won it you or the books you researched.

If I am reaching for a book in the middle of a game there is something wrong. I am not likely to get any benefit from consulting a book when outside of the opening. If it is my opening that won the game for me then it is likely to be the books that won it for me in any case since I will have read those opening books at some point whether during or before the game.

I think the point being raised here unless I got it wrong is some believe it is wrong to consult the book/programs during a game of which I personally subscribe to but each to their own i guess. We all research book/programs for general understanding and to improve and outside of  game that is fine IMHO

I think the problem stems from the immediacy afforded by online chess. Although "Turn based chess" is derived from correspondence chess it is possible to play out a game in standard tournament times or even blitz times if one wishes. I have played real postal correspondence chess in the past and it can take weeks (months if Russia/USSR was involved) for the next move to arrive. This could also apply to email chess although the times tended to be less.

I think we need some way to distinguish between those who wish to play over the board style chess from traditional correspondence players. The Live Chess facility is OK but I don't think it really caters for those who want a longer game. Alright if you are a teenage adrenalin junky who wants to play many more games in an evening than I will play in a month, not so good for those who want to play a game lasting an hour or more. Perhaps the solution to the problem would be three sections on this site, blitz, regular time controls and much longer.

I do not use any type of aid, written, oral, computer program etc... even so I never begrudge people who uses these aids. I care not because it only makes me that much better if I beat a multiple brained opponent. Needless to say, I do get beat by 1200 or less ranked opponents now and then. It matters not, as long as the opponents makes the board that more interesting... otherwise i might as well go take a nap, make love, or something.

Sharukin, I respect your opinion and do take your views on board. I can see that with Correspondance chess it can go in for months and even years. I too have played this way and I think we will research during a game but not necessarily that game we are playing. Allow me to give you an example. I hate the sicilian with a passion, or at least i did until i joined a recent torney that was preset for the sicilian. I believe now I have begun to understand the defence and also how to attack it. I learnt through play not books, yes I made mistakes, yes I lost games because of those mistake but I learnt. I guess the point I am trying to put across is when I play someone I really want them to use the knowledge in their head rather than a book or program. The internet does allow us a new medium to play people all over the world and games are played on trust and I guess I am seeking from this great web site the simulation of effectively playing OTB or as close to it. I have meet some great people here and pleased to be part of this site. Your thoughts are not being discarded and I guess the responses you are getting proves this very point. We all have opinions and they are as vaild as the next one.

De-Lar wrote:

Also Sharukin, I constantly consult chess books about the middle game / endgame.

So do I, but I doubt very much that I will find the position in any of my current games in a book on the middlegame. Such books will help with general principles but will not be much help with position I am looking at on the board or screen. Endgame books are probably more useful but I don't have one so cannot tell. I had one many years ago and was foolish enough to lend it to a friend.

 I am admittedly naive to this topic as I assumed that except for the occasional person who thought they were being clever, we were all playing by using just our over the board, current knowledge.

 If it is common for people to use these learning methods during games then I do think it would be a great addition, as some posters have previously stated, to have the option to note games played with and without computer assistance.

I like this idea because we have some people using these games as a kind of cpu assisted training and other treating them as a more pure competition.

Neither is wrong, but they are certainly very different and I'd like to know which one I'm competing in.

Using a chess engine to assist play is against the rules of this site and players who do that and are proved to be doing so get banned. I think that is the only thing you could count as "cpu assisted training". I don't think you can count a book as cpu assistance, even if it happens to be an ebook. Databases maybe, but all that is happening there is data handling. Use a database unwisely, without understanding the moves it contains, and disaster is likely to follow.

There are sites that allow (or at least do not disallow) engine use. Indeed, top flight correspondence players regularly use engine assistance during a game and FIDE have not thus far attempted to ban it. For further details try this http://www.amici.iccf.com/issues/Issue_07/issue_07_ivar_bern_part_1.html

Allow me to give an example we both open with kings pawn and the white plays the queens pawn to attack your Pawn. Do we take or not. Now to be truthful i dont know. Now in my view it would be wrong to consult a book or play engine to make that decision I am in a game, now it choise. However after having made that choise and the game is over it would be ok to research or talk to other about that decision.

That is a common view and I think it is one generally held by those who prefer regular over the board chess to correspondence chess. They have come here for that sort of chess, albeit played online. Lifelong correspondence players have a different view simply because they have been playing to a different set of rules all this time. I think the rules are actually a matter of practicality rather than a desire to allow one player an unfair advantage. As I mentioned earlier, it would be unreasonable to ban study during games that might last months or years. It is also impractical to impose a ban that cannot be policed.

This just demonstrates to me the need for separation between correspondence play and quasi-over the board play. I would certainly be annoyed if I was playing over the board and my opponent consulted a book or database but I expect my opponent in a correspondence game to be consulting any aid he has at his disposal. Different games, different rules.

Very well explained Sharukin and I do see you point. Thank you for taking the time to state your position and thoughts and showing great patiance:). I think we are both agreed that if we know the stance we are playng then both options are right.

Absolutely. I just wish there was some way to guarantee that the people who want genuine over the board style chess at longer time controls could get that. As it is, there is no way to ensure that your opponent is not consulting books, databases or divine help during a game. It is a problem.

Its that magicial word again TRUST. I trust everyone is playng the same way i do and if not then so beit, I lose that game and it was an experiance. Ignorance can be bliss :)

To be honest, I doubt that access to books or databases will make a lot of difference at this level. If you are going to play into some horrendously complicated and long opening line then the person with the better book/bigger database will likely come out of the opening better but if you are not going down that kind of road there will come a time when you are both relying on your own brains. It also likely that any advantage gained by book or database will be small and require deeper understanding than most players here, myself included, possess.