References while playing (Cheating?)
Sort:
On a related note, is there an FAQ of playing "how to" and rules type of things anywhere around here?
--Fromper
Who cheats who? Those who cheat by using computers to help them is by any means cheating themselves.
I'm just trying to learn the openings I play better, so I wanted to know if it's ok to look up opening lines while playing. In most correspondence chess, this is acceptable, so I just wanted to check before doing it here. I don't cheat with computers. I don't care about winning here enough to bother with that. My goal is to learn so I can play better in OTB tournaments.
--Fromper
Sep 6, 2007
0
#6
Here is the FAQ: http://www.chess.com/faqs.html
Quoted from the FAQ page - "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."
The Honor system is still very relevant, for we don't know if the opponent is cheating (especially using a chess computer program) or not. Injustice happens, but what can we do about it? Maybe the first question is: can we know if someone is cheating?
Bonzlibir wrote: Who cheats who? Those who cheat by using computers to help them is by any means cheating themselves.
if the purpose of this site is to improve your game(which is why i am here)_what good is it to cheat by consulting books or computer programs or any other resource? you certainly can't use them in person or during live tourneys, so why use them here? it is certainly acceptable and reccomended to use all resources while studying chess, but in the end its what you carry around in your head that will win or lose games. what do you think?
Sep 8, 2007
0
#9
It doesn't surprise me that there is a bit of a debate about using books. doctor-ice makes an excellent point. I think books are allowed because chess via e-mail is supposed to be in part a learning experience as opposed to a live tournament.
Use of books as references is a part of correspondence chess. The whole idea in correspondence is to try and find the best move. If you've got it in your head to do so, then that's great. But if you want to compare to past games and analysis by other players, then that can be helpful, too. Correspondence chess, whether on this site or historically back in the days of postal games 100 years ago or more, has always been that way. The only thing that's not allowed is asking other players (including computer programs these days) to help with your analysis and research during the game.
As for why I'd want to "cheat" by consulting databases of past games or published books, it's just like freezenyr says. I'm playing here to learn, so that I'll be better prepared for OTB tournaments where I won't have those books. So looking up opening moves in a book helps me find good moves this time, and that helps me remember those moves for the next time I play that opening without the book in front of me. This is how I learn more about "book" opening theory while dedicating most of my study time to other areas, rather than actually reading those opening books from cover to cover.
--Fromper
Though we can't know if a person is cheating (since this would require knowledge of their intent) we can rely on the fact that we are not. To be cheated it seems is unjust but only if your concern is to win. If, as people have suggested in this thread, we play to improve our game then playing someone who beats us, irrespective of their intent to cheat, serves us.
I prefer to make the move based on my own understanding of the opening and check the database afterward. That way, instead of changing my move to fit the book opening, I can learn why my move was wrong by having to play my game from the resultant position. Had I changed my move to fit the book, I wouldn't have expanded my grasp on the concepts behind it.
A complete waste of time this is a social sight People are here to make friends learn from each other and play Chess there is nothing gained from cheating they can lie to their opponents but they can't lie to the person they look back at in the mirror or Caissa because she knows what is in a Player heart and only rewards the ones who are true to the game.
It just amazes me how many people in this and the other thread on this topic completely miss the point. Nobody thinks asking other players or computer programs how they should play a specific position is acceptible. But this is correspondence chess. Using reference books is part of the game.
I learn by looking things up in a book. How does this line normally go? What are the possible variations? Which one looks like the type of thing I'd be most comfortable playing? This is all in the opening phase, so it doesn't win the game for me - wins and losses are determined by the play in the middle game and endgame. This just helps increase overall understanding of the opening being played, which makes me a better player for the future, especially in OTB tournaments. That's my goal in practicing here, and in using opening books for reference while doing so.
--Fromper
Sep 16, 2007
0
#15
"It just amazes me how many people in this and the other thread on this topic completely miss the point."
I don't think so.
When a person joins a correspondence chess league, they generally understand the aims of correspondence chess, one of which you correctly stated as being to (hopefully) find the best move. And for this reason most, though not all, correspondence chess leagues allow the use of books and databases - and some, though not many, even allow the use of computer programs - and it's all within the purposes and confines of that particular chess genre.
The basic argument isn't what should or shouldn't be allowed, but rather exactly what genre this is. As Alex94x pointed out, this is primarily a social site with chess being the tie that binds. I'm sure a few people here are, or have been, correspondence players, but 99% would probably consider that type of play peculiar (to be mild). The only similarity between this site and correspondence chess is that both have extended time controls, but even that difference is muted since time controls in correspondence chess are much, much longer than the average time control here. And even with the shortest time control here, some of the biggest complaint-threads deal with people taking too long to move. Does that sound like correspondence chess? Does it sound like the people here are correspondence chess players?
In that sense, this site is a bit schizophrenic with one foot in OTB chess and one foot in correspondence chess. The rules say you can use books and databases, but, knowing 95% of the players won't even consider doing that, (and the tiny percentage using computers will be too lazy to research games) you can still tell yourself it's ok because the rules allow it. Caveat emptor.
Learning is fine - in fact it's commendable. That's why I believe in post-game analyzation and annotations. During the game, you can only follow your own conscience and hope your opponent is doing likewise.
"Learning is fine - in fact it's commendable. That's why I believe in post-game analyzation and annotations."
Amen.
Just wondering what the rules are for using reference material in playing "correspondence" games on this site. I know that in most correspondence chess, using such references as opening books or databases of past games (your own or large collections of master games) is generally considered ok. But using stuff like a computer program such as Fritz or ChessMaster to pick moves for you, or having outside help from other players, is considered cheating. What are the rules here?
--Fromper