1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2A game is a game, right? Rated or not, right?
I strongly suggest that you avoid being used as a reference. I would like to know from Russ himself in these forums (or very explicitly in the ToS) if what I described as one of the scenario's in setup/unrated games is allowed. Meanwhile I assume the answer is yes.
ps. concerning the date of that post, I wasn't the one bringing that thread up. It was pu ...[text shortened]... it up) meant. Myself, I would never have referred to you as an 'official' in these matters.
From the TOS:
---------------
3(b) 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.
----------------------
This says RHP does not distinguish a rated or unrated game. All games. So, in short... it's already in the TOS.
If you don't want to take Russ' word for it, that is your decision. I'm just passing the news, and am in fact an official being a volunteer for the Game Moderation team. That is why I had to change my position on using engines in RHP play, the admins don't want it.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhat about team games - a group of players against one player, or a group of players against a group of players? Would that count as "assisted by a third party", or would the group count as one party (although they have to use the account of just one person)?
A game is a game, right? Rated or not, right?
From the TOS:
---------------
3(b) 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 ot y I had to change my position on using engines in RHP play, the admins don't want it.
P-
I think it's a pity that 3(b) is also applied to unrated games. It limits the way unrated games can be used, and I can't see how it benefits anyone. But it seems that Russ has made up his mind on this, or at least the engine part.
Edit: I do think it should only be allowed when both opponents agree to it, though.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232I'm not familiar with the technical requirements, but I seem to recall seeing bullet chess (1m 0s) being played in the Advanced rooms at Yahoo Chess, by players with impossibly high ratings (super-GM or higher). If so that would seem to argue the possibility of automating the process with scripts.
what were the time controls? if they were 5 10 and below I am pretty certain that he could not have been cheating because if you take the time to open frizt then the time to go back and forth between the blitz site don't you think that he would time out? ...Of course it the times were anything above 5 15 it is possible I guess.
My impression is that cheating is endemic to online blitz chess sites in general. For those attracted by the prospect of racking up high ratings without the time and effort necessary to actually develop the corresponding skills, a script automated, engine driven series of short blitz games could provide instant gratification.
Seems rather pointless, unless you've written the software and want to test it: and even then simple courtesy demands that you notify potential opponents and use sites which permit (identified) engine use. I seem to recall that on FICS engines can be used if identified as such, and there was never any shortage of opponents. Some of those games also had very short time controls, I think.
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitIt is your assumption that 'a game is a game'. In my opinion, a setup game is not 'just a game' and it can have many other purposes than just 'winning a game', which is the normal case. I still assume that the rules mentioned under 3b are subject to a different interpretation in these cases. I will take Russ' word (if he ever speakes/writes it) if he explicitly denies this and confirms your position that consulting, in-game move discussion, engine use, etc. are illegal in setup. And in that case, I will have to draw my own conclusions, given the fact that over 90% of the games I played during the last three years are setup, and with a constructive idea towards RHP members in mind.
A game is a game, right? Rated or not, right?
From the TOS:
---------------
3(b) 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 ot y I had to change my position on using engines in RHP play, the admins don't want it.
P-
ps. as an example, just imagine an endgame position where my trainee needs more than just my explanation to be convinced of a certain point, where is the offense towards the RHP community if I recommend him to check my input on his engine as a basis for further explanation? Would Russ want to avoid this happening? Why? My honest guess is that he doesn't want that.
edit ps2 in many (>50 percent) of my coaching games, I play the losing side, just to re-enforce my point
Originally posted by Mephisto2I don`t think that opinion of game mods differs from opinion of Russ and Chris. And if they don`t want to allow any engine use during the game, (independently is it "normal"/setup, rated/unrated etc. ) then you should not do that if you don`t want be banned.
It is your assumption that 'a game is a game'. In my opinion, a setup game is not 'just a game' and it can have many other purposes than just 'winning a game', which is the normal case. I still assume that the rules mentioned under 3b are subject to a different interpretation in these cases. I will take Russ' word (if he ever speakes/writes it) if he expli ...[text shortened]... (>50 percent) of my coaching games, I play the losing side, just to re-enforce my point
This is interesting. About 12 months ago I played a number of unrated tutorial games against a selection of opponents. Right from the start my intention was to create suitable opportunities for my opponent to win and right from the start it was agreed that I would use an engine to help me develop the tactical ploys necessary to achieve this so I could maximise the learning opportunities. Fritz helped me find many inferior moves that looked good but that had tactical nuances my opponents needed to spot. I used Fritz as a tool to help me develop the tutorial in a way that improved the learning opportunities. I never considered I was doing any thing wrong but it now appears (having confessed to engine use in these games) I am about to be banned for infringing TOS 3(b).
Originally posted by Dragon FireI doubt you'll be banned for that, as you didn't know it wasn't allowed. But it does sound like it is meant to be a bannable offence, which I find utterly ridiculous. If an educational game can be made more educational by using an engine, I can only see benefits coming from that. In contrast to engine use in rated games or against people who haven't agreed to it and aren't interested in playing against an engine, the person who benefitted most from it was actually your opponent. And in contrast to engine use in rated games, it didn't affect anyone else than the two of you because it didn't affect your ratings. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be allowed, other than that it's easier to say "no engine-use EVAH" than to go a bit more into detail.
This is interesting. About 12 months ago I played a number of unrated tutorial games against a selection of opponents. Right from the start my intention was to create suitable opportunities for my opponent to win and right from the start it was agreed that I would use an engine to help me develop the tactical ploys necessary to achieve this so I could ma ...[text shortened]... (having confessed to engine use in these games) I am about to be banned for infringing TOS 3(b).
Originally posted by Mephisto2Listen,
It is your assumption that 'a game is a game'. In my opinion, a setup game is not 'just a game' and it can have many other purposes than just 'winning a game', which is the normal case. I still assume that the rules mentioned under 3b are subject to a different interpretation in these cases. I will take Russ' word (if he ever speakes/writes it) if he expli ...[text shortened]... (>50 percent) of my coaching games, I play the losing side, just to re-enforce my point
Tell it to Russ. As you can see from many of my posts I saw no problems with using engines in an unrated game.
Russ Doesn't want them.
You ask him about it if you don't trust me on the subject, and don't ask me to change the rule, it was not my idea.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysTell Russ.
What about team games - a group of players against one player, or a group of players against a group of players? Would that count as "assisted by a third party", or would the group count as one party (although they have to use the account of just one person)?
I think it's a pity that 3(b) is also applied to unrated games. It limits the way unrated games c part.
Edit: I do think it should only be allowed when both opponents agree to it, though.
Feedback is how you voice your opinion to the Admins, otherwise we bicker regardless what I or you think.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensthat's silly
The other thing that has me pretty convinced is that even on obvious moves he took a while to move...
But what matters is if it's a bannable offence for future reference. If it is, I'll start saving PGN's.
the games are unrated, what do you care if you're playing against a 1250 Patzer or a 2700 computer engine? heck, unrated, I'd prefer the engine. they say: you only get better by playing stronger people (and studying, but what good is studying if you never get to test your new concepts on stronger opponents?)
Edit: then again, I should make myself clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT BREAKING THE RULES OF THIS SITE IN ANY WAY (other than by occassionally giving the mods a hard time in the general forum) I'm just saying that I don't care what/who I play.
Originally posted by Dragon Firethat would suck... your forum contributions are too valuable to get banned over that... especially since you were using it in an agreed setting as a learning device.
This is interesting. About 12 months ago I played a number of unrated tutorial games against a selection of opponents. Right from the start my intention was to create suitable opportunities for my opponent to win and right from the start it was agreed that I would use an engine to help me develop the tactical ploys necessary to achieve this so I could ma ...[text shortened]... (having confessed to engine use in these games) I am about to be banned for infringing TOS 3(b).
Originally posted by Dragon FireIt's possible that it might be helpful if you could get one or more of your opponents in these games to PM Russ confirming that they agreed to this. While technically, you did violate the TOS, perhaps because of the circumstances, he would reduce the punishment (e.g. one month suspension). FWIW, I feel that a total ban is definetly undeserved. Good luck.
... it was agreed that I would use an engine ....
Originally posted by ih8sensIs it possible for RHP to somehow detect running engines? Probably not? Maybe RHP admins would create some serious SPYWARE 😀
I'm 99% sure I just played a game against a cheater. Running it through fritz I'm almost certain that my opponent started using an engine about 10 moves in (going from a patzerish 3 pawn defecit to a win in only a few moves 😛).
Is it a bannable offence to cheat in RHP blitz?