Is using a computer to help you with your moves cheating?(like going to a website)
Sort:
i do not think it is cheating it can help you in many many different ways and you can learn a lot more skills then in a book there are walk throughs and videos from the pros that is how i learned and i hope you chek it out
Mar 14, 2008
0
#22
What is cheating?
Here is what the site rules say, according to an "FAQ" in the online help files, which you can look up by searching for "rules":
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases. EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed."
If you disagree with these rules, then fine. But until they are changed, those are the rules, aren't they?
This is why players at correspondence chess usually have a higher rating than OTB chess.
Those of you who think these rules constitute cheating should either work to change the rules or play real time chess. Otherwise, what is the purpose of calling those who are playing by the rules "cheaters"?
Mar 14, 2008
0
#23
Dahan wrote: I think it's cheating. You can analyze the game afterwards if you wish, but your opponent wants to play you, not a computer. What are you really gaining that couldn't be gained rightfully by going back to the game later? Not much but an false score.
By this logic, is it also cheating to use the analysis board which is provided?
They are at the bottom of my screen right now:
- Home |
- About |
- Contact |
- Report Bugs |
- Report Abuse |
- Advertise |
- FAQs |
- Help
- Site Map |
- Privacy Policy |
- Terms of Service |
- © 2008 Chess.com
Mar 14, 2008
0
#25
RetGuvvie98 wrote: Cleptomania wrote:
What is cheating?
Here is what the site rules say, according to an "FAQ" in the online help files, which you can look up by searching for "rules":
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases. EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed."
Cleptomania,
please help me (and maybe a lot of others as well), by telling me: where did you find that 'FAQ' you cite above? I am not able to readily find it. it might be nice if erik posted RULES for this site on the green bar, along with the rest of the info stuff.
but I've been looking for it, and didn't find it. where is it please?
thanks, in advance.
At the upper right of the web page there is a "Help" link. After you click on it, you get a help page which lists popular FAQs. In that list is one which is "What are the rules for playing". That is where I copied the quoted faq in my post. You can also search for "rules" in the help page search and find the same thing. I think there must be something more than the FAQ, but I am still looking for that. Thanks.
imho
cheating-
chess engines, tablebases, help from another person.
not cheating-
online databases, chess books.
That is how correspondence chess would be played if we sent our opponents our move on a picture postcard, after all.
If you use the computer to make your moves, then you'll never know (or know thereabouts) what your real rating is, you'll just be the computer engine's liason relaying the moves to the human opponent. If you want to use it, then go ahead. You're just not likely to learn anything or get any better.
Mar 14, 2008
0
#28
I think there are a couple of interesting issues going on at the same time in this discussion. The first issue is when someone is cheating, how can we tell for sure and what can we do about it? The second issue is what is cheating? This is a much easier issue to deal with, and so perhaps we should first deal with it before trying to solve the first problem. If you take a close look at the rules for correspondence chess at different venues, you will see that they are not all the same. Shouldn't we keep it in mind that we are supposed to be using the rules of this site? Again, they are found in the help files: search for rules.
why would you ever want ot rely on some refrence to win a game of chess. How on earth do you think you will ever beat someone as great as me if you need a book to do so, it comprimises your ability and makes you dependant
Test your skills aginst me on live chess?
http://www.chess.com/play/live.html
Mar 14, 2008
0
#30
Alpha0 wrote:
why would you ever want ot rely on some refrence to win a game of chess. How on earth do you think you will ever beat someone as great as me if you need a book to do so, it comprimises your ability and makes you dependant
Test your skills aginst me on live chess?
That is respectable opinion. Well said! Many players would agree with that. I agree with that. That said, does that opinion mean that everyone who has a different opinion should not be allowed to play according to the rules (which allow the use of books and databases)because some people don't like it? By the way, if I accept your chess challenge, and then you beat me, what does that mean to this subject, exactly?
Mar 15, 2008
0
#31
Anyone who likes to play chess under the same rules you would if your opponent was sitting over the board from you, look at the group principles of Circle of Trust (no books, no engines, no databases, analysis only done in your head (not on a board by moving pieces around to see what happens), but good oldfashioned chess games (learning is for when specific games are not in progress, or to lesrn from mistakes you have made when a game is finished).
Mar 15, 2008
0
#32
roundtuit wrote: Anyone who likes to play chess under the same rules you would if your opponent was sitting over the board from you, look at the group principles of Circle of Trust (no books, no engines, no databases, analysis only done in your head (not on a board by moving pieces around to see what happens), but good oldfashioned chess games (learning is for when specific games are not in progress, or to lesrn from mistakes you have made when a game is finished).
That is good and respectable opinion that anyone can agree with. You may not realize it, but these are the posted rules on this site (below quoted):
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases. EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed."
It isn't fair to criticize players who are playing by these posted rules. These rules are, I believe, common to correspondence chess.
Mar 15, 2008
0
#33
Roundtuit:
PS: If you want to play by your rules, I would agree to that; just send me a message if you would like to play a game. Have a great day down there (down under).
Mar 15, 2008
0
#34
We do know the rules of the site, and we disagree'd with them, and therefore started a group with our own idea of the rules we wish to play by, when we play another member of our group we know we are playing by our rules, we dont need to ask can we use a chess engine, or any other books etc. because we know we cannot do this under club rules, we do not critisize anyone for playing by chess.com rules, if that is what they wish, and if any of our members play outside the Group, in tourny's etc, they can use the rules which pertain there. I never played correspondence chess, but knowing your win or loss, is from your own knowledge, even if it is a flash from a game or book learned years ago is what satisfies me when playing chess, I critisize no one for playing their way, I just prefer not to play them
Mar 15, 2008
0
#35
Earlengray wrote: I am also the member, this was not a critic what Roundtuit have said. He just explained that this is simply the group for players who don't like to use databases and other stuff. Also these rules apply only for games played inside the group. I see nothing wrong with that. It is said not that using database is not ok, but if you want to play the game where you can be sure that your opponent doesn't use it, go visit this group.
Thank you for the explanation. I understand better now. I will look up the group. Sounds interesting.
thank you to all who answered my question
spice wrote:
Even if a game starts out with the same pattern as another previously played game, it's not likely to continue in that pattern. I've tried to look at my own games in which I've played well and try to duplicate a few good moves, but it never works and it takes too much time to keep going back anyway. It's probably easier and will improve your game more if you try to think critically instead of trying to memorize some other games.
I completely agree. I study some of my current openings @ chessgames.com while I'm playing. But usually after about 5 moves the information becomes irrelevant and I have to find my own way. We can't be expected to quit studying chess during corresspondence games that are 1 move per 3 days. I have even discussed positions with my friends to see what they think about a certain combination - I don't consider it cheating. If I'm in a tournament - I'll play totally cut off. Otherwise - it's a learning experience. Chess is a game nobody will ever completely understand, it's a constant learning experience.
Mar 15, 2008
0
#38
roundtuit wrote:.... knowing your win or loss, is from your own knowledge, even if it is a flash from a game or book learned years ago is what satisfies me when playing chess, I critisize no one for playing their way, I just prefer not to play them
Thank you for the clarification. I did not know about the group, and I am glad to hear all about it. I would like to mention it to other players from time to time, if your group is accepting new members.
The site rules here are kind of hidden in the help files, and I think it would be a help to have a separate link to the rules. According to some of the posts I see, there are a lot of players who think that cheating is going on when, in fact, the behavior is allowed by the rules.
I like a lot of different ways of playing chess. I play in coffee shops, online, and occasionally in a tournament. I agree with your view on playing via our own knowledge, and I like the idea of people being able to know automatically that is the agreement.
On the other hand, I also like the idea of using the database, books, and articles. To me it is a great way to combine study with play because I can use my database to go over games right in the middle of one! I also know my win, when I get one, is not all from my own skill. That's one reason I expect correspondence chess ratings to be higher than OTB. As you know, most players consider turn-based internet chess to be correspondence chess. Anyway, thank you for the information. That is great to know about! I will look it up and spread the word (if that's okay).
Thank you again for the clarification. I understand what you were saying much better now!
Mar 15, 2008
0
#39
Earlengray wrote: For example, I play with members of the group when I want simply to enjoy some chess, or when want to practice my calculation skills ( to calculate without moving pieces). In other hand, when I want to explore some opening positions I play with not-group members and use database to learn more about the positions I'm interested in. Every approach has it's benefits.
Wow, that's one of the most reasonable posts I have ever seen on this subject. It is nice to see posts from a reasonable person.
THANK YOU.
I love how skorj writes a great post that nails it spot on and then someone else writes " it's cheating " . Read the rules before posting people , using a database of previous games or consulting an opening book , is not cheating . It is just one of the things that distinguishes correspondance chess from otb chess.