Bug in analysis board?

Please read the full discussion, I talked about this in my first post and it was already brought up by DrPhil.

See, here's the difference:

1. Stopping someone from making an illegal move in an actual game = following the rules

2. Telling someone that a future/planned move is illegal = not really following the rules

I think this is - and always has been - pretty clear.

Correspondence chess has different rules than live OTB chess. It does not try to replicate those rules. Books are allowed in correspondence. Internet articles and google searches are allowed in correspondence. Opening databases are allowed in correspondence.

I'm going to go ahead and contribute to this again, if only to add another line to the pro-change argument.  To me, if I'm analysing a chess game, I want the board I'm using to act like a natural board.  I want to be able to move pieces around, play with fantasy positions, go back and play alternate paths from previous positions, etc.  NONE of these things were possible before.  There are certainly some features of an online board that could ENHANCE the board (the "current" button being most useful, followed by the "back" button), but forcing the position to follow chess rules isn't one, IMO.  And not just because it doesn't provide an additional level of unwarranted oversight.

Three cheers for the new analysis board!!!

The old one amounted to computer assistance.  This is exactly what should have been done.

This too has already been discussed. Let me give some more or less new direction to this discussion. To those who feel that the old situation was best: What reason is there to allow this form of outside help. I think that is a vital question for the defence and I don't think I've seen any answers yet.

The new board still does not allow one to make the error of swiping all of the pieces to the floor in anger, which is possible with a real board. It does not allow one to set up a board with a dark square in the right-hand corner (you know, for fantasy positions). Ergo, the new board still amounts to computer assistance.

Matthijs,

You may call it outside help, but quite frankly I don't care about that. It's a remote possibility that it will have an influence. However, the inconvenience is a daily issue (I don't know if you always remember who's turn it was, or never misclick, etc. etc., but I do all the time, and I'd be very surprised if I was the only one). The off-chance that people would use this as a legality check and not going to use some other program which can do exactly the same (and much more) is in my opinion far outweighed by this inconvenience.

And beware of unintended consequences: if only 1% of those who dislike the new board now proceed to use Rybka-like software instead of it and let it suggest moves as well, we'd have far more cheating. Yes, you can be puritanical and say that there should never be an aid that could ever be 'abused', but it doesn't make for a more fun chess experience. And that's what counts, at least for me.

To your first paragraph, I would say you are actually expanding the scope of the smartboard's 'outside assistance' as its been defined so far:  Apparently, it's not just a legality checker, but more specifically, it's a tonic for carelessness.  This isn't an issue of "inconvenience"; it's an issue of "concentrate on what you're doing or lose."  That's chess for you.

To your second paragraph:  You seem to be saying that chess.com can protect its members from egregious forms of cheating by enabling planning 'features' that act (just a little) like chess software.  Well, not that I entirely buy it, but the very idea that someone could be driven to Rybka by the recent change to the analysis board would strongly reinforce that the board was too smart for its own good.  Let the hypothetical 1% try their luck against whatever anti-cheating technology this site has in play and (hopefully) good riddance to them all.

Well in brief I support the new functionality or lack of it.  It should not point out that your proposed moves are illegal, as to the fact that you can't make an illegal move on the actual playing board that's analagous to an arbiter pointing out an illegal move, this point was covered already I knows.

DrPhil, in my opinion the analysis board is vastly easier to use than a real board  set up.  When I used to analyse positions on 3d boards I would have to set up the main game position and then use other boards to explore variations leaving the main board set up on the mainline so I could find my way back to the original position. With the chess.com analysis board you can still go back and forwards, branch out and return with a lot more ease. So I don't accept that it's now no easier than doing your analysis on a real board. Of course you're entitled to your opinion but I say well done to chess.com yet again.

We're not really getting anywhere, are we?  Different people have different points of view and that's the end of it.  The chess.com staff should choose.  But if people really did want to decide for themselves, why not make a poll on it?  

In my humble opinion, I think that it's an improvement.  You should be able to set up random positions on it.  And anyway, if you use a database (perfectly allowed) then you are putting the moves into an Fritz or Rybka, which will not allow illegal moves.  So people can use that kind of "computer assistance" perfectly legally anyway.

OG

First, I have to say to those making the argument that the old analysis board amounted to outside help: your argument makes no sense in light of the ability to use databases. You seem to be saying, "Well, that's a part of the rules for turned-based games. The rules do not allow outside assistance. Therefore, use of databases in those games is not outside assistance." That is the only way I can read the logic of your argument. I think I need comment no further on its soundness.

As a policy matter, perhaps you're saying, "Well, that has always been allowed. It's allowed in official correspondence chess. It's a well-established exception. That should be the only form of outside help allowed." In response, I would again dispute that the rules-enforced analysis board constitutes "outside help." However, let's set that aside. By making this new argument, you're allowing a form of outside help that, as OpeningGambit pointed out, provides for the very functionality that you're disputing here. The only chess program I use is ChessDB (because I'm cheap, thus unwilling to purchase one, and ChessDB seems to be the best among the current cadre of free programs for OS/X). ChessDB disallows illegal moves. Therefore, the only difference between my using ChessDB to check the lines of my game, and the old analysis board, is that I have to use the program in addition to chess.com. Granted, that's not a big deal. It's extra time to do something that chess.com used to provide functionality for. I find it slightly annoying, but I promise, I'll live. All of which gets me to something that OpeningGambit said: We're not really getting anywhere, are we?  Different people have different points of view and that's the end of it.  The chess.com staff should choose.

That is precisely why it should be a choice for the players as to whether they have the rules-enabled analysis board, if feasible. Perhaps it could be a user option akin to the setting where you can choose whether to confirm your move after you make it or just make the move. I don't know how these things work. I do understand that many people wanted a non-rules-enforcing analysis board. There appears to be those of us who preferred the old analysis board. I'm willing to give you the choice. I still haven't seen a convincing reason why we shouldn't get the same choice, in light of what is already allowed under site policies.

DrPhil: " You may call it outside help, but quite frankly I don't care about that. It's a remote possibility that it will have an influence. However, the inconvenience is a daily issue (I don't know if you always remember who's turn it was, or never misclick, etc. etc., but I do all the time, and I'd be very surprised if I was the only one)."

In parentheses you describe exactly the influence it has. When you don't remember whose turn it was or misplace a piece and don't realise it, you have made a real analytical mistake, just like missing a knight fork two moves ahead would be. I'm not claiming that outside help isn't convenient, but that the burden of proof is on those who wish to allow it.

OpeningGambit: "We're not really getting anywhere, are we?  Different people have different points of view and that's the end of it."

A very strange notion. You're undermining the entire idea of a discussion. I feel that real progress has been made. Opinions clarified, arguments refuted. This is the discussion as it stands:

-Those who feel the smartboard should stay, should give a reason as to why this form of outside help (or convenience) should be allowed.

-Those who feel that the smartboard should be optional fall into two categories:

     -Those feel that players should decide for themsleves whether or not to use the smartboard. This has been demonstrated to amount to allowing the outside help.

     -Those who feel players should be able to agree on it amongst each other. The issue here is practicality and a poll (as you indicate) should make clear whether it is worth the trouble for chess.com programmers.

Compare that to the beginning of the discussion (even disregarding the initial disbelief (I hope everybody understands to what I amreferring)) and see the real progress.

Edit: Again forgive my slow reaction time. When I wrote this I was unaware of dmvdc's latest reaction.

I think it was a little silly of a change.  I suppose the change will serve as a possible punishment for people who may be a little careless when plotting their moves. I doubt it will affect my games, but I question the value this provided.

Dmvdc, as to your first paragraph, please do not misrepresent arguments. I have never claimed (and I doubt anybody ever has) that databases aren't outside help. They are an exception that is allowed for reasons which are not under discussion here. If you want to discuss the use of databases, please take it outside (open another topic).

I'm curious about your claim that the smartboard isn't outside help. Please elaborate.

I don't understand the (second) database argument. Databases are like books, you can look up positions in them and see what somebody has to say about them. Granted you can then analyse on boards that the database provides but that is not the actual database use. I often use Fritz' opening book, not to analyse the positions, but to use it's databse.

You seems to belong to the first group of people who choose optionality ( see my last post). It has been demonstrated (in fact it is trivial to see) that that amounts to allowing the use of outside help. In other words that position is equal to the position that the smartboard should be restored. In either case you can but don't have to use it.

Mathijs,

I think we simply have radically differnt outlooks on Chess. I play chess as a relaxation, will be regularly interrupted, then pick it up, have a look, and make a move. If you think it's an analytical error if you get distracted and forget whose turn it is, than you're playing a completely different game than I. I don't call that an analytical error, I call that casual play. I don't see why there should be prevention of 'outside help' just because such a feature would be frowned upon in a tournament.

There's a huge crowd who wants to play, casually and as conventiently as possible. people who play for fun and don't care if their opponent would be reminded whose turn it is, etc. That's what it all boils down to, I suppose.

The burden of proof is on those who claim the analysis board as it was amounted to "outside help." However, there are strong reasons why the old analysis board was perfectly fine.

For one, if the analysis board is given, then it should be a representation of the board the actual moves are played upon.  Since the actual game board does not allow one to enter illegal moves, then neither should the analysis board.

Secondly, a computer graphics game board is not and cannot be a perfect replica of a physical board... and it should not be. For instance, I can place a piece half-way between two squares, on top of one another, or up my nose if I'm sitting with my physical analysis board in front of me. Why is no one calling for these features?

The old computer table-top sets did not allow illegal moves, and if it was possible for board manufacturers to make chess sets that did not allow illegal moves, I assure you they most certainly would. Why? Because those moves are illegal by convention, and are not part of the set of possible moves considered to be the "game of chess."

It is also a matter of convenience and accessibility. Since moving a computer piece is not the same as moving a physical piece, making the analysis board seem like a physical board raises some serious issues. People with certain disabilities, those using laptop touch-pads... it is already difficult enough to attempt to move a piece with a mouse as it is. (Look at any user interface studies:  in the simple action of moving the mouse pointer over button, the pointer actually moves in spirals before it gets to the button. Now imagine the wild arc the mouse pointer makes trying to move the bishop across the board. Now imagine you are using a laptop, or have severe physical disabilities.)

Finally, if the analysis board allows illegal moves, then the actual game board should to. Then we can be treated to issue of resolving all of the disputes that will arise, the forums will be filled with topics about missing the opponent's illegal move, everyone will be whining about the need to arbitrate, and eventually the boards will go back to not allowing illegal moves.

DrPhil, I don't think our outlook on chess differ that much. I too play chess for relaxation and I make these analytical errors because I play casually. The question is whether or not these errors should be corrected through outside help. I don't see why they should be.

Edit: But I should add to that that the choice whether or not to allow this type of help is arbitrary and if most people prefer it then I won't object (as I haven't before the change). But I expect that most people didn't realise it was outside help and may not want it once they do. But this matter could be polled also (just as the real optional form).

I would still like to see how disallowing illegal moves is a form of help. From what I've read in this forum, a case for this truly has not been made.

Consider a computer program that simulates a shuffling a deck of cards and dealing a five-card stud game. Now, according to the rules that define that game, the two Joker cards are not to be included in the shuffled deck. But, to make the program seem more realistic, the programmers allow the program to occasionally deal out those Jokers (just as may happen accidentally in a home poker game). That particular hand is ruined; you are, in fact, not playing five-card stud at all. Poker played professionally under the auspices of a casino or poker room won't deal out Jokers by default because it is not part of the game.

It did not help our hypothetical poker play at all to have those Jokers dealt, because he turned out to not have been playing poker when those were dealt.

By the same reasoning, allowing one to make illegal moves on a computer chess board is illogical, if computer chess boards are to remain idealised chess boards at all and not some farcical representation of a physical chess set.

Gee. This discussion calls into question the use of outside electronic analysis boards with more features than the Chess.com analysis board, doesn't it? In the spirit of the reasoning behind the new changes in Chess.com's analysis board, do the rules need to make clear that--in Chess.com "online" or "turn-based" games--for an analysis board we may use only the official Chess.com analysis board or a physical board and pieces?

This would be a major change for me since I've long used, and long advocated the use of, an outside electronic analysis board that saves all the lines of play I analyze. But, on the other hand, is this any different than just writing them down as I investigate them, which you can do with a physical board and pieces? It's a time saver, of course. But using the official Chess.com analysis board is a time saver over physical board and pieces already.

So, I guess the question becomes: Are Chess.com administrators going to officially outlaw the use of any analysis board other than the official Chess.com board or a physical board and pieces?