Engine use for analysis.

Okay, so I've already read a lot of various posts about cheating/engine use, and I know that using one in a game is obviously cheating.  However, I have a bit of an ethical/rules dilemma- in this case it is purely hypothetical as of now, but could become practical.  Let's say that I am playing a turn-based game, and I'm way past the opening, and I realized that somewhere along the line I screwed up, but I don't know where.  Let's also say that large portions of this line are standard moves to me, and thus, this situation could very well occur again if I don't rectify the problem.  Would it be in this case unethical/against the rules to use an engine to analyze the game PROVIDED THAT I do not go up to the point where moves are currently being made?  My argument being that the rules state that "You can NEVER use chess programs or engines (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games. . ."  And that if it's a turn based game, the portion of the game I'm analyzing is actually not current- I can't take it back, and as long as I don't analyze moves that I could actually still make, I'm in the clear.  Any thoughts?

I would say no, that really wouldn't be allowed. There is still the possibility that the engine could provide you with ideas that could help in the game. Say, if a particular square or piece is weak but neither you nor your opponent has seen it for a few moves. The engine may point that out to you.

That said, there is another rule also that would say no (from here):

You may also use Game databases which do not include computer analysis (including Chess.com's Game Explorer) for the Online (correspondence) Chess only.

So basically, you are not supposed to use an engine to analyze your own games and then use that analysis in later games you play on the site. Which seems really hard to enforce since you can't guarantee that computer analysis isn't included in databases you may be using.

I sometimes analyze my finished games with engines, after I have went through the game first, because if I don't see something in the game, I'm not very likely to see it later in self analysis. Which means I can't use my personal games database which might include engine analysis. That hasn't been an issue with me, as I haven't been going back to my old games for ongoing games anyway. I guess you could just keep a copy of your games, that are moves and self-analysis only and another copy that includes engine analysis.

That's why it says "no current ongoing game" and not "no current position"

Because otherwise you could always go up the 2nd to last move and analyze if only for the evaluation if not to check to see if your move was best.  This would be very helpful especially in highly tactical or otherwise messy positions and would correctly considered blatant cheating.

Fair enough.  Just a hypothetical anyway, folks, trust me, if I was cheating I'd be a lot better. 

@ Fezzik, that is my question exactly. . . Except I don't have a 2500+ rated friend.  I have, however, been working on my reanimation techniques.  Anyone know where Fischer is buried?

Expanding on Fezzik's question, what if I only play one opening as black or white, and I'm playing a turn based game, say i'm at move 20.  In the interim between my opponent's move 20 and my move 21 (I'm playing white obviously) I play a live game with my GM friend, we happen to play the exact same first 20 moves, and then I make my 21st move, and he promptly (as in next 8 moves or so) destroys me (we're assuming for a fleeting moment that I'm somewhat close to his strength).  Furthermore, what if the 21st move I played in the live game had been a strong candidate move in the online game?  And to add even more depth to the dilemma, envision the same scenario, but replace the GM with a computer.  More/less/equally ethical?  (also, sorry about all the assumptions and parentheses and such- just trying to make sure things are clear).

If two games contain the same position, one ongoing and one done, under the rules you can't submit the finished position to engine analysis because it is also a position in a current game.  You merely have to wait for the ongoing game(s) to finish.

However this is a bit of a loophole for use in very similar positions where there would be no reason to not use computer analysis.  Feasibly if you have multiple games all with the same opening, you could analyse best lines for non-current positions that are 1 move away from being current positions to find the "best" moves.

you've misinterpreted that rule about databases with engine analysis (I agree it's a bit ambiguous.  What it actually means is using databases that also give a computer evaluation of the position such +0.7 for white etc.  It was written in response to a specific query from a chess.com member which was discussed in a forum at the time. 

If that is the case, then that  is great. However, it would be nice if that is indeed the case then the FAQ be updated to include that. Though I wonder if standard notation (white slight better, +=, etc) which are used by players, and I believe some engines, would still be OK.

I'm just going by a literal reading of the allowance, though I don't see how one can truly be sure that any analysis being used (unless it is self-analysis), either by book or by database, isn't computer checked at the very least. If the stipulation is a concrete computer evaluation (in something like centipawns) then it makes it easier.

I don't think it is trying to find some justification for cheating. I know I have had similar questions before. I play a lot of the same lines and, depending on exactly what the rules say, then it potentially could be considered cheating if I use an engine to analyze my lines, in games that have already been completed, as they may match current ongoing games to some extent.

For me it is mostly a moot point right now, as I haven't been analyzing my games really (though I want to start again soon). It is very likely, while going over my games and using a computer to analyze and trying to build up my repertoire that I will be analyzing lines that match current games, up to a certain point. If, as MM78 wrote, the prohibition is mainly against numerical engine evaluation, then it isn't a big deal, as long post-game analysis with an engine doesn't get used to help determine a move in an ongoing game.

hi, i'm new around here, ive been told to give correspondence a go, im traditionally a blitz/live game player. im just wondering if theres measures in place on chess.com to identify if a player is using engine during a game ?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-policy-on-cheating