the side-effects of cheating

Cheating does have no bad side-effects on rating, but as long as the cheater cheats constantly. Sporadical cheating does have bad side-effects.

If we wanted to play against computers, we'd never need to log on to chess.com. But I do agree that chess computers make great learning devices. The issue is not whether you should use a chess computer but when. A chess engine should be used for learning purposes only for post-game analysis. Using it during the game, whether instructional or not, gives you an unfair advantage if the other player hasn't agreed to use computers. This unfair advantage exists whether you cheat for one move or the entire game.

But what do you have to say about the scenario I talked about in my first post. Two players using a computer against each other. I am not talking about just picking the move the computer makes. I am talking about something like finding the move you would make, seeing the options the computer gives. Exploring them and figuring out "why" compared to your move.

I agree that just playing a computer will not work. In my first post I said that a normal game is more valuable. I also tried to argue that higher rated players can really benefit from assisted vs assisted. This is were I belive you can realy learn. I never said players cheat to learn.

Calling me an idiot does not make you correct. The amount of people that agree or disagree has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.

I have said that cheating can have benefits. You are saying that is insulting you. However, that does not mean what I have said is invalid. Like I have said cheating is bad, but it is nothing compared to poison. Never be afraid of somone learning something, weather it is about computer assistence or not, they can make decisions for themselves.

No, I think i have pointed out some things that are not so obvious.

You can be very satisfied from a loss. If you play a very good game, if you try the best you can. Even losing the game you could still feel very satisfied. Thus, chess is not just about winning. You dont play to learn, but you play to win. To win you must learn. If someone cheats you and you lose you can still learn, you could even be satisfied from the game haha.

I just dont see how labeling people as real and not real chess players will help any of your arguments.

"...its not hard to see the damage cheating does if you are a real chess player. Perhaps those who cannot see the damage/harm it does are not real chess players ?"  

I am defining group A. If you are in group A you will understand(agree) what I am saying. those in group B do not understand.  Why not just say "its not hard to see the damage cheating does." You are effectively calling everyone who does not agree with you not a "real chess player". Do you see why if I dont agree with you, I dont easily see the damage of cheating, I am not a real chess player? I dont think seeing the effects of cheating is that easy, if it was then we would all be agreeing with each other. Does that make me not a real chess player? I was not trying to make a smart aleck remark, it was a serious question.

all your argument is about is high level players turning to cheating and leaving ICC because of their frustration against people they believe are cheating. A high level players experience does not compare to the vast amount of low level players. Its not hard to see this if you are a real chess player. Do you see how I have not actually said anything. I have just degraded anyone who does not agree with my statement.

I just dont think that a titled players experience on ICC is remotly close to the joe chess player on chess.com.

Fuze22, unless I badly miss my guess you are NOT a "real" chessplayer by the definition I gave. Please inform us of your "chess credentials" if you have any and do you consider yourself as a real and/or serious chessplayer ? To suggest that people should play "advanced chess" as a way to improve makes no sense, because the weaker players dont have enough chess understanding to get anything out of using a computer ( it cannot explain to them why their suggested move is good or bad only give a numerical evaluation) and the stronger players understand that the program is much stronger and even though they may have enough understanding to suggest a reasonable alternative and then watch the comp's numerical evaluation ( again with no explanation ) the comps top pick ( candidate move) is gonna be the better than their suggestion 99% of the time so they are simply likely to just go with that move. The result ? In both cases you are simply going to have a game between player A's computer vs player B's computer. In the end neither human is really playing chess, their computer is ! Perhaps you also believe in math students are allowed to use calculators during important exams they will learn something more about math ? 

You could gain all the benfits from using your engine if you studied the game you played AFTER it was over.  That way you could examine where you went wrong, find stronger moves, check out side line variations all without screwing over your opponent who logged on the play a human being.

The only problem is all that might take a bit of WORK, and you might just learn something in the process!  Heaven forbid!

Everyone here has chess engines on their home computer, if they don't they can quickly have them with many strong open source engines, and several even stronger commercial engines.

If i'm paying for a site that is largely to improve my chess via a good playing environment, then if I end up just playing games against computers, it's worthless. I can do that at home, and get the same benefit. That's the harm.

Sure, chess.com offers more than just turn based and live chess, but turn based chess is still a big part of its core competence. Cheating hurts this.

I dont believe in "real anything". I am a chess player. I dont cheat. I am always trying to improve. What suggested that I did not fit your definition? I dont have any credentials that I think you would find worth anything. I started to take chess seriously in high school. I joined the chess club and became the president of it. Since then I have only played on-line and at chess clubs in various cities. I would love to take part in USCF tournaments but I dont have the time nor can I travel to the different tournaments. My chess career is probably nothing compared to yours. Compared to you then I guess I am not a real chess player. All of my friends consider me a serious chess player. The difference between me and them is similar to me and you. If I asked them If I was a real chess player they would probably ask what is a real chess player. Even my friends who do play chess and even though I am considerably better then them I dont think they are any less of a chess player. When you use the word serious then that actually has meaning to me. Anyways I have surrendered my credentials. I am not sure of the point of my credentials. even If I was a GM that should not suddenly make people think differently of what I have said.

You have made some good points about "advanced chess". I honestly don't know how much one can improve from it. I have never tried it, but obviously want to. From what you have said and until I can actually try it I will have to agree that you will only learn as much as studying any position. Thus this questions the point of even playing when you could learn in equal or better ways. But I still stand by my point that the negative sides effects of cheating on this site are not as bad as many seam to think. The fact that you can learn from "advanced chess" means that people who cheat can learn just as well. and so on and so on with what I have already said regarding the side-effects.

Even If I am right about the side effects being not as great as is suggested it ultimately does not matter. I am tiered of reiterating my point and being insulted and accused of cheating. I guess I have said all I can say about the side-effects.

I have not said you are a cheater, indeed I do not know. I have said that IF you are I wouldnt be surprised and the reason I feel this way is mainly due to the opinions you hold concerning computer assisted play. I use a computer after otb tournies I play in to examine my losses. What I find is that I very often overlook better moves than what I chose in the game, especially in complicated tactical positions. This often turns a win into a draw or even a loss. What do I learn from the computer though ? Only that I am far weaker than it in tactical positions in particular and chess in general. It never explains anything to me so I dont "understand more" than I did before. I do understand to help lessen the problem I have to work on tactics and solve tactical problems more.... the comp does help me to see that I overlook better moves quite often and so do my opponents! However, to actually improve I still must do serious work so that I dont continue making the same type of typical oversights. The computer cannot do this work for me and it cant even assign me some homework/problems that will help eliminate the weakness. This is where books ( even better a trainer/coach) comes in . If computers helped as much as some people seem to think they do/can then there would be many more GMs than there are I believe. Why not ?

It is very odd how strongly people are attacking the original poster for posing a controversial question. In the chess arena there has long been that saying that you play a board not a player. I wonder that so many fail to extrapolate from that and attack the question if you think it must be attacked and not attack the questioner? There is a huge paranoia here about cheating that is blinding people to the fact that the person who started this thread has only posited an interesting proposition and asked who agreed or did not and why and why not.

I do not happen to agree that computer assistance or so-called 'cheating' can be harmless, but that does not lead me to attack the questioner as a cheater himself just because he says he cannot see the same harm.

I will address this via the issue of Advanced Chess which so many seem to misunderstand here. The whole idea was first broached by Garry Kasparov whom I for one would be loathe to call an idiot or a cheat or lacking in morals because it is a form of chess that has a human using a computer while playing chess.

The reason I think that the first poster is off base is that I think that for something like Advanced Chess to work and improve a player or lead to a good game or as Kasparov wants it to improve the level of chess as a game itself, is that it takes a truly advanced and experienced player to benefit from it in a way that a lesser player or beginner could not. What I mean is that from what I understand of Advanced Chess - the human and the computer are partners, a dynamic pair playing another similar dynamic pair. It is the combination of computer and advanced human mind that work together.

To answer the original poster's question then - that just cannot happen with a lesser player. Lesser players will only be led by a computer. Their playing will be formed by it and they will become the creature or slave of the computer not its partner. That is why I think it is dangerous for development of a young or new or inexperienced player to resort to computers for advice or assessments of their play before they have learned how to 'think' chess properly. That is the harm I can see if you use computers to 'cheat' or help you if you are playing chess online outside the arena of true Advanced Chess.

Please keep the forum thread friendly and without the insults :)

 I dont know why you would be loathe to call Kasparov a cheat since he was actually video taped cheating against Polgar ? He took a move back, its clear to see on the tape.

We have to stop the cheat

I said very clearly "Garry Kasparov whom I for one would be loathe to call an idiot or a cheat or lacking in morals because it [Advanced Chess] is a form of chess that has a human using a computer while playing chess." I was addressing the notion that to put forth advanced chess or cyborg chess as a boon to the chess world would itself earn anyone the labels of idiot, cheat or a person of low morals as the original poster here has had to suffer. That is separate from the Polgar incident.

Again, while cheating by using computers to assist the mind when playing online chess here is wrong, I do believe the attacks and abuse and accusations hurled at the original poster are also reprehensible and a sign of the extreme paranoia that players on this site have about this issue.

Reb, from a NM, I was expecting more insight than this...

You should know very well that getting points on this site is WAY easier than in any FIDE/USCF tournament. I am mostly talking about the fact that here on chess.com, you can beat a player who is way lower than you in ELO and still get a good amount of points (which doesn't make any sense to me!). 

If you steadily play (and win) against players rated way lower than you, you will steadily increase your ELO. Note: I am not suggesting this is fun - actually, I am here to learn, so I'd rather challenge and lose against a higher rated opponent than win against a lower rated one - I just noticed this because I have several friends who are lower rated than me, and I never refuse their challenges.

My 2 cents, against the "your OTB rating is much lower than your chess.com rating, so you must be cheating" mantra...

Feel free to play advanced chess, just make sure it's unrated and both sides know what type of game they're playing.

I don't see what the argument is... those are the rules, if you don't like them then don't play.

You say using an engine doesn't ruin the other players fun but unfortunately for you that isn't for you to say. Fun is opinion based. And I for one do not enjoy playing computers. Part of what makes playing people at your skill level fun is finding the opponents mistakes and exploiting them. Someone around my rating make mistakes I can find. Someone using an engine doesn't.

By definition, cheating is lying.

Justified lying is only allowable under a utilitarian ethics system (which is what the OP has paraphrased for us).  However, the lie told must benefit the greater good if it is to be justified.  This means the teller of the lie (the cheater) must accurately estimate the benefit and detriment.

Since the cheater cannot accurately estimate the effect his cheating will have on an opponent, he is unable to justify his lie even under the utilitarian school of ethics.

And lets stop confusing the issue by using computer assistance and cheating interchangably.  If two people agree to computer assistance in their game, it is not cheating because no rules are being broken.  Cheating occurs when ONE person uses computer assistance without informing the other.

Clouding the topic by entertwining the two situations seems disingenuous.

By definition cheating is violating the rules.  If the rules allow for lying, it is not cheating.

Other than that newspooky, John Stuart Mill would be proud of you.

Psst, this just in:  Internet chess rating is just like play money at internet poker.

Fuse:

So it seems most people agree with me that computer-assisted human v. unassisted human is cheating unless both sides agree to that arrangement.

As to your question about two people agreeing to use computers against each other, that seems perfectly fine, although a bit strange. I think there is more educational value (and enjoyment value) in simply playing human v. human and then doing a post-game computer analysis then there is in two hacks pitting their computers against each other (regardless of whether they play their own moves now and then).