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

Originally posted by wolfgang59
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 ...[text shortened]... dnt get any satisfaction getting a superior position after 12 moves if it was all from a book!!

I would like to play chess on-line and nobody used assistance, even the analyze board, but with these rules, I would feel at a great disadvantage since everyone else could do as they pleased. I started out playing like I would OTB with just more time to consider my moves, but as I learned more what was allowed I abandoned that practice. I realized this was a place designed for learning.

P.S. I also use this site to witness for Christ and inform people of false religions and false teachings like evolution.

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.

Eyeglasses are cheating. If you cannot see the road signs unaided, you should not be permitted to drive an automobile.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...evolution.

Didn't we create a separate forum for such nonsense so it would not infect the purity of other forums?

Originally posted by Varenka
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.

I admit I have really struggled with this whole concept. I have lots of OTB prep I have made over time in the King's Indian Attack and in Alekhines's Defense with the use of computers.

As a result, I do not use those openings very often on the site here, unless I know I can vary from my OTB prep without messing up the game.

I also feel funny about virtually every opening book published after 2005 or so, since I am sure that the writer used one or more engines for their notes, although not all admit it. I do use the books, but I wonder about where we're going with all this.

I feel like a line does have to be drawn somewhere, just to make sure we're on a level playing field, but I don't know where it should be drawn.

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

It doesn't tell me why the moves are played, but it does tell me they are tactically sound or not. The thing is this, lets say i'm analysing the game i posted and both i and my opponent follow the game to move 30 (just for example). We're out of "theory" (ie, moves that have been played in a recorded Grandmaster match) but i still have a computer evaluation of various continuations from that position. Now, the chances are, most of these moves are going to be ideas i am capable of finding myself, but i have computer analysis which i and various third parties have done before my game reached anything approaching the current position. This is still computer assistance as i can play the moves with confidence that i'm not missing something fundamental (which would mean the computer would recommend another move...)

Another example, i play someone 10 times. We repeat the opening ten times and in between each game i analyse the finished games with fritz and 'Let's Check' each time, improving my play each time. This is something any aspiring player might do with their club games, why not correspondence games? More to the point, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw any sort of dividing line between using computer assistance while playing, and gaining computer assistance as part of ones own repertoire (if that makes sense..)

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
It doesn't tell me why the moves are played, but it does tell me they are tactically sound or not. The thing is this, lets say i'm analysing the game i posted and both i and my opponent follow the game to move 30 (just for example). We're out of "theory" (ie, moves that have been played in a recorded Grandmaster match) but i still have a computer evaluat ...[text shortened]... and gaining computer assistance as part of ones own repertoire (if that makes sense..)

Yes, I get your point. Kasparov has used computer analysis as well, but of course, not while playing an actual game.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Didn't we create a separate forum for such nonsense so it would not infect the purity of other forums?

I was just pointing out another good use of this site other than learning about chess.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I feel like a line does have to be drawn somewhere, just to make sure we're on a level playing field, but I don't know where it should be drawn.

Some people on here have their completed games analysed by a GM. In many cases this is even more of a help than using an engine,and the GM’s knowledge may be based on some engine analysis. But not everyone has access to a GM for such purposes. So, since we’re not going to propose people stop getting their completed games analysed by stronger players, I don’t see any way of ensuring a level playing field in this respect.

In my opinion, the only place the line can be drawn is that all reference material must exist prior to the start of a game that uses it (just like people shouldn’t discuss games in progress with a GM, but can use openings suggested by the GM prior to the start). It’s not that I like the idea of people referring to pages of engine analysis that they generated prior to the game – it’s not why I play chess – but we need feasible rules that can actually be specified in the TOS.

I expect people to disagree with where I’d draw the line but please then state where you’d draw it and how you'd specify it in the TOS (I don't mean you specifically Paul - that is a general comment to anyone).

I brought this issue up back when Let's Check first came out. Technically, anything in Let's check is pre-existing analysis. It's out there "published" just like any other game resource. It should be fair game for reference.

That being said it kind of sucks for CC. Both in the sense that players can just ape moves off Let's check and also in that many of the evaluations in let's check are highly suspect.

Either way Let's check is just another reason why I am phasing out of CC.

It seems like cheating to me. I guess the distinction with databases might be a bit unclear; but if you are using an engine to pick your moves, that seems wrong, regardless of whether the machine is doing the analysis in real time or not (it's just a timing issue which makes no practical difference to you). Analysis done by you before the game must be ok: if you've somehow managed to analyse the whole of chess beforehand, more power to your elbow. Books are ok cos they are mostly not that helpful and take hours and, as you say, you mostly wouldn't bother anyway. For me, the real question is: if you end up just sticking games into fritz, what is the point of playing.

p.s. RJH your posts make me laugh. Keep posting. 😉

No problem with using a book.
It was allowed under the old style of CC play (BC 1990...Before Computers)
The book stops with a full stop.

Using a box to follow theory is dodgy.
What happens when the theory runs out, it will suggest a move. (it has no full stop.)
Cheating by accident if you like but what will the player do, igniore it?

Using box analysis from a previous game must be allowed as the analyse
was not sought for whilst the game was in progress.
This is classed as privately owned knowledge. (or words to those effect.)

That is the one of drawbacks (IMO) of the match up system, they start
analysing when the moment their theory runs out.
If the player has had a lot of pre experience with this line then is a very strong chance
he will have a deeper (is that the right word?) electronic database.
That is why one or two chosen games is never enough.

There is a big grey area with posting on here:
Suppose Robbie asks for the best line in a variation of the Winawer because
it gave him trouble in a previous game. He has no GIP with this line.

Out comes the guys (me with a bucketful of traps) and the rest with reams of analysis

Yet there is a very strong chance someone on here will be playing a Winawer
and we are all discussing a GIP.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Eyeglasses are cheating. If you cannot see the road signs unaided, you should not be permitted to drive an automobile.

Your post makes no sense.

Originally posted by scubily
It seems like cheating to me. I guess the distinction with databases might be a bit unclear; but if you are using an engine to pick your moves, that seems wrong, regardless of whether the machine is doing the analysis in real time or not (it's just a timing issue which makes no practical difference to you). Analysis done by you before the game must be ok: ...[text shortened]... fritz, what is the point of playing.

p.s. RJH your posts make me laugh. Keep posting. 😉

Thank you, I enjoy humor as well.

Originally posted by vivify
Your post makes no sense.

That might be another reason his rating is worse on RHP. Ha ha 😀

Originally posted by vivify
Your post makes no sense.

That's the point. I took your logic concerning the rules of correspondence chess and applied it to an every day situation. Consequently, you are able to draw the correct conclusion.