Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    29 Jan '11 04:45
    I am watching a tournament game on another site. The game opened with the Blachly gambit.I did A database search on opening moves,to learn about this opening and found a library of many games that have used this opening.In this game there have been twenty two seperate moves and every move has been identicle to a game I found in the database.How many moves does it take before you are no longer using an opening move database and are now cheating?Is it a coincedence that the moves are exact or is one opponent using an engine?Can an engine duplicate moves that were made sometime before in another game and is it possible that someone in the other game was cheating too?
  2. 29 Jan '11 10:58
    If the lads are following a DB then they can follow the DB till checkmate
    if it goes that far.

    What may have happened is that one lad has run this game through a top box
    and it has found a smashing move. So the lad leads someone along this path
    and then unleashes his corker.

    It's not cheating in the sense of the word because the lad did not use the
    box during the game, but before it.

    If questioned and the lad says this is the case then you have to believe him.
    Also the chances are you will find a game he played without the corker thus
    verifying the fact he boxed it (or burnt some midnight oil) in between games.

    A wee bit of a grey area because you are using a box in a postion
    you know or hope WILL appear in one of your games.

    TOS:

    While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers
    or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during
    play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played
    games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.

    So you running a box over a previous game and finding a smashing move can
    come under the banner of ' pre-existing research materials'

    But if the DB you are using has box analysis in it and is therefore not between
    human players then.....grey area.
  3. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    29 Jan '11 17:33
    Since I maybe one of the only people in the world not to own a chess engine and can't study the game to see if one or more of the players are using an engine.Can one duplicate the game by putting the moves into a chess engine?Or will the engine not make the same counter moves everytime,say after seven or eight moves.The two opponents in this game are niether the same opponents in the previous game.
  4. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    29 Jan '11 19:17
    Maybe They will let you post a link.If you ask through the send feedback.
  5. 29 Jan '11 19:43
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I went through the profiles of everyone on page 1. Nobody admits to using endgame tablebases. One person does state that he uses various endgame references, but not tablebases.
  6. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    29 Jan '11 23:01
    So I guess you can use opening databases to a certain point which really hasn't been defined as number of moves and you can use end game references.(which I didn't know there was such a thing.)If some one is really good at riding that fine line of starting out with database openings and making a couple of moves off the top of their head which then takes them to an end game reference.How is that not playing against corespondence rules?On this site for example would it not be a lot easier for the mods to study grey area games if they did away with or made the rules about database openings and end game references a little stricter.Sure someone says they are playing within the rules using database openings and endgame references,one can't tell me that a percentage of the most honest players haven't fudged once or twice.
  7. 30 Jan '11 00:55 / 1 edit
    The game can be posted only when it's finished.
    You can add when the DB ended and when the game 'started',
    but don't add anything else or the thread may get pulled, again.

    I know a player on the front page once said in their profile
    that they used endgame tablebases. It has since been edited.

    I'm of the opinion that they did not know it was not allowed,
    else why say such a thing, it can only be an honest error.
    Or perhaps they just got the wording wrong and meant endgame databases.

    We have to remember that English is not the Mother tongue of
    some players on here. I could not write my profile in a foreign language.
    I saw it as an honest and genuine mistake.

    (what are endgame databases....end games played by humans....
    soon the opening and the endgame will meet and players will have to
    find 2 or 3 middle game moves before the databases completely take over.)
  8. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    30 Jan '11 01:56
    (what are endgame databases....end games played by humans....
    soon the opening and the endgame will meet and players will have to
    find 2 or 3 middle game moves before the databases completely take over.)[/b]
    I think databases have already taken over.I can't see how only two or three middle moves is any different than using an engine.Humans are not using their brain for the game anymore.I understand that is corespondence chess.Why play chess if you rely more and more on outside help.It's like doing a crossword with the answers in front of you.I have no problem with playing someone on a site like this if I am playing an opponent using an engine or their brain.The thing is I can play and lose against a cp by just doing a google search and picking any computer game I want.it's just nice to play against another human sometimes.
  9. 30 Jan '11 02:29
    Believe me Dinc if you play the under 1600 guys you will
    be very very unlucky to run into an engine.

    They play clean, mean and fast....far too fast.
    (check out my blog, I usually only show their games.)

    No computers there just loads of juicy blunders to exploit.
    (and for me to write about.) 🙂

    It's where the fun is and the lads play for the love of it.
  10. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    30 Jan '11 02:38 / 1 edit
    I've been on this site long enough to know that wasn't always true.What does that say about the players above 1600?Careful now
  11. 30 Jan '11 03:22
    It says the chances are of meeting an engine are higher.

    Established under 1600 players are OK there are over 14,000 of them.
    Played loads of them, never bumped into a box that I know of.

    Have faith in the mods.
  12. Subscriber dinc168
    no where man
    30 Jan '11 07:21
    I have all the faith in the mods.I was here before the birth of the mods,when this site was like gameknot is now.Sometimes I think that they are overrun and can't keep up though.
  13. 30 Jan '11 13:17
    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Nc6

    Had never heard of this opening.So black's last move constitutes the Blachly gambit.
    No doubt a ridiculous question but what does black gambit?

    toet.
  14. 30 Jan '11 15:16
    Originally posted by toeternitoe
    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Nc6

    Had never heard of this opening.So black's last move constitutes the Blachly gambit.
    No doubt a ridiculous question but what does black gambit?

    toet.
    Nothing, AFAICT. Much as in the Cunningham and Becker Gambits. It should properly be called the Blachly defense against the King's Gambit, but that's a bit of a mouthful. Hence the shorter Blachly Gambit

    Richard
  15. 30 Jan '11 16:22 / 1 edit
    Can I interject? The OP needs to really understand what chess education is... Does he think the top over-the-board players are not using prepared lines? The only difference in that and non-machined CC (like this site) is that the poor human is not required to have a super-human memory. Many (most?) prepared (or preplayed?) lines in chess go to a point where there is still an active discussion (games!) going on about who is better in the given position. I enjoy playing from known lines for the reason greenpawn34 mentioned. You can find the move that establishes who is better (or at least pushes the conversation to another level.) There is nothing wrong with this! This is how chess advances! Theory is NOT a cheat-sheet. It is simply every game ever played by anyone anywhere. The trivial results are not cataloged. The disputed results are.

    In any case (also as greenpawn34 points out) you will find that most players here usually deviate quickly from known lines. (The secret of greenpawn34's and my success!) I don't mind leaving theory on move 2. I also don't mind playing to a book position and seeing which one of us really understands it. Cheating is when you are just using moves from some other source and not demonstrating your own understanding of the position. When you do that you are not a chess player; you are just another machine.

    We all know there are cheaters but I pity them because they are less than human. It must be a hollow feeling. When I win I am happy because I did the work but when I blunder (and I do constantly) it hurts but I try to learn something from it. Theory is just painless learning. You don't need to put your hand on the stove, just be open to learning and you can avoid that pain. (But not all pain! Then you wouldn't be human!)