Fritz 13, Let's Check and engine assistance rules on RHP.

This is the new feature which comes with Fritz 13 (my new toy). Basically it's a repository of engine analysis that you can search specific positions in. I have a game which is very early on and i'm experimenting with a line from the game Anish Giri v Levon Aronian 2012 (i've seen Aronian play this before but have taken this game to analyse with fritz to tr and get a handle on some of the points i've probably over looked).

Now, this brings up something of a conundrum. Engine analysis of a game in progress is obviously not allowed (my game is still on move 3 so we're still well in opening theory). What is my cut off time? At what point does my analysis become engine assistance??

Here is the game...



Now, i can paste this into fritz and select 'Lets Check' and hey presto! I have analysis from Stockfish, Houdhini, Shredder, etc, etc, etc at my finger tips on the spot. Fantastic! Normally it'd take hours to get all this (not that i'd bother). But it's a conundrum, how much of this can i use? What if my opponent does the same thing? We're using analysis that is technically theory. What is the consensus??

An interesting question. Opening theory has obviously grown exponentially since the advent of computer analysis. GM's rely heavily upon it for their preparations. At some point, a GM will play moves OTB that were discovered in such preparation sessions. If it is illegal assistance before it is played OTB, how is it legal once Anand, Nakamura, Leko, etc. play it? I think that, unfortunately, engine analysis will eventually be considered fair play in CC. That will be a sad day. Happily, i don't believe that it will have a dramatic effect on intermediate patzers like me (I hope!) since a very small percentage of people in my rating bracket will be using engines in their games. If they are, and they stay in my rating range, then either they are using really bad programs, or they are really inept.

Edit- Fritz 13, wow, jealous. I still have an old copy of Fritz 8. I'm really cheap.

My understanding from prior discussions is that any engine assisted analysis cannot be used in games at RHP.

Such a hard line is unrealistic, of course. Every opening text published in the past decade or so was extensively checked, and the newest ones can be assumed to have lines that benefit from "Let's Check."

Terms of service 3b says not to use assistance 'while a game is in progress'. Seems clear enough to me. Then again, some of my opponents may argue that I am not actually 'progressing' in a game!

Originally posted by John Osmar
Terms of service 3b says not to use assistance 'while a game is in progress'. Seems clear enough to me. Then again, some of my opponents may argue that I am not actually 'progressing' in a game!

Correction, the TOS say: 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.

Hence the question, pre-existing research, including databases of games played by humans, have been aided by computer analysis.

Getting any sort of "advise" or "input" that's directly related to a game you're actively playing, is cheating. Reading general material just to improve your game overal game, however, is not cheating.

Originally posted by vivify
Getting any sort of "advise" or "input" that's directly related to a game you're actively playing, is cheating. Reading general material just to improve your game overal game, however, is not cheating.

This is not a correct reading of the TOS. You absolutely may reference databases of human games, opening books, and endgame books relative to games in progress. I don't, I'm lazy, but you can.

Originally posted by vivify
Getting any sort of "advise" or "input" that's directly related to a game you're actively playing, is cheating. Reading general material just to improve your game overal game, however, is not cheating.

No, it's not. Please read TOS 3(b).

This is a correspondence chess site. In CC you've always been allowed to use books and similar reference material. What you can't do is to get your chess engine to play the game for you - that IS cheating.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
Correction, the TOS say: 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 [b]you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.

Hence ...[text shortened]... g research, including databases of games played by humans, have been aided by computer analysis.[/b]

That "between human players" has been held to exclude engine - engine games. It stands to reason that engine analysis is forbidden, regardless of when it occurs. That GMs use such analysis in their games, and in their annotations, complicates things. My sense, however, is that "Let's Check" crosses the line, however gray that line may appear.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
It stands to reason that engine analysis is forbidden, regardless of when it occurs.

So, if I complete a game on here and analyse the finished game with an engine - finding a better line in the opening as a result - I'm not allowed to use my new knowledge in a future RHP game?

Engine analysis done outwith a game in progress *has* to be allowed. Any other proposal would be too unfeasible to manage and enforce.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
This is not a correct reading of the TOS. You absolutely may reference databases of human games, opening books, and endgame books relative to games in progress. I don't, I'm lazy, but you can.

Sorry, I forgot to add the words "in my opinion". It may be legal here, but in my opinion, that's cheating. Imagine if someone referenced a book during a grandmaster game.

Originally posted by C J Horse
No, it's not. Please read TOS 3(b).

This is a correspondence chess site. In CC you've always been allowed to use books and similar reference material. What you can't do is to get your chess engine to play the game for you - that IS cheating.

I think general reference material is fine (again, I'm not talking about the rules of this site, just the ethics of it). Let's say you recognize a position during one of your games, that's similar to GM game. In my opinion, it would be cheating to see what that GM did during the game, in a similar position.

However, let's say that you're in the endgame phase, and you consult a book about endgames; that's fine, in my opinion, because it's not specific to the game you're currently playing; just general advise.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by vivify
I think general reference material is fine (again, I'm not talking about the rules of this site, just the ethics of it). Let's say you recognize a position during one of your games, that's similar to GM game. In my opinion, it would be cheating to see what that GM did during the game, in a similar position.

However, let's say that you're in the endgame specific to the game you're currently playing; just general advise.

Just my opinion.

Referring to a book of games by a grandmaster would be cheating OTB.

However, it is not considered cheating on RHP and I am almost certain that all the highest rated players on here do it.

I agree that one should close all his books when a game is in progress to have a fair game and determine a players actual playing rating. However the purpose of this site is more for learning to play the best moves. You learn that from grandmaster games and not by your own play.

P.S. If you want to play real chess like you are referring to, you will need to join a chess club and play OTB.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
This is the new feature which comes with Fritz 13 (my new toy). Basically it's a repository of engine analysis that you can search specific positions in. I have a game which is very early on and i'm experimenting with a line from the game Anish Giri v Levon Aronian 2012 (i've seen Aronian play this before but have taken this game to analyse with fritz to ...[text shortened]... analysis that is technically theory. What is the consensus??

If Fritz 13 can tell you why the moves were made, then that is a very good analysis program.

Originally posted by vivify
Sorry, I forgot to add the words "in my opinion". It may be legal here, but in my opinion, that's cheating. Imagine if someone referenced a book during a grandmaster game.

It may be legal here, but in my opinion, that's cheating.
You can have an opinion on interpreting a law but not on the law itself!
Rules are rules!

Imagine if someone referenced a book during a grandmaster game.
I can imagine that because in Correspondance they do ... and that is what we play here!

However I agree with the spirit of what you say - personally I dont use books
(nor sometimes my brain) when playing and treat games almost as OTB (I do use the analyze board feature tho!). I wouldnt get any satisfaction getting a superior position after 12 moves if it was all from a book!!