3 edits
Originally posted by MahoutPrimarily I was indulging in arch rhetoric about "the cup of the Borgias". Dragon Fire is far too cunning to poison a guest with his own brandy on his own premises, even if he were inclined to.
Whilst you're text carries a degree of verisimilitude I believe you're over imagining the level of iniquity in our suburbs and perhaps even projecting.
Did you notice that he calls himself "Lord of all beasts" and displays a picture of Sauron's ring above the rather ironic caption "searching for truth"? For those not versed in the fiction of Tolkien, Sauron is a vaguely satanic creature who made a number of attractive rings made of gold, gave them as gifts to the leaders of the various races of Middle Earth as if offering unctuous flattery to the nobility, but had secretly made a Ring of Power which allowed him some degree of influence or control over the wearers of the other rings. The inscription, which can be discerned in the picture on the inner surface of the ring, translates into English as: "One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." And of course, in Christian mythology a dragon symbolizes the physical manifestation of Satan and evil.
As for substantive issues, between myself, wormwood, and Gate Crasher, I think the Orthodox interpretation of the terms of service has been well and amply stated.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI know the rules and have never indicated otherwise and in fact do not disagree with anything Wormwood and Gate Crasher state but I'm afraid you are attempting to see evil intent where there is none.
As for substantive issues, between myself, wormwood, and Gate Crasher, I think the Orthodox interpretation of the terms of service has been well and amply stated.
I believe a lot of the circumstances I have attempted to outline are deemed by the majority to be perfectly reasonable. The intent as we have established is whether the research is designed to assist in securing an advantage in a current game and if so it should be avoided but that where analysis of a completed game or research that involves the use of a tablebase helps achieve an advantage in a future game it is perfectly acceptable.
Incidently I conceded very early in this thread that I felt that analysis of the type of ending (using a tablebase) into which an existing game had a remote chance of heading should be avoided as long as there was still a chance that it could go that way. Of course analysing a past point (using an engine) of an existing game will always be unacceptable.
Perhaps you should read my posts a little more carefully to see where I am really coming from instead of assigning motives to me that do not exist. I also doubt you belong in quite the same category as Wormwood and Gatecrasher as fear your views are somewhat more extreme than their quite sensible views.
Originally posted by Dragon FireDamage control is all you have left, I fear: misrepresent the facts (including your own statements) to cover your retreat, and hope that nobody notices.
I know the rules and have never indicated otherwise and in fact do not disagree with anything Wormwood and Gate Crasher state but I'm afraid you are attempting to see evil intent where there is none.
I believe a lot of the circumstances I have attempted to outline are deemed by the majority to be perfectly reasonable. The intent as we have established ...[text shortened]... atecrasher as fear your views are somewhat more extreme than their [b]quite sensible views.[/b]
Meanwhile, you're attempting to drive a wedge into your opposition -- divide and weaken -- by appealing to the vanity of some while attempting to get them to accept your most troublesome critic as something different and illegitimate. The only difference between my position and those of the other two, so far as I can see, is that I introduced a personal element into the discussion, whereas they refrained from it. Substantively, however, with respect to the issue of engine and tablebase use and the terms of service, the positions of wormwood, Gate Crasher and myself are identical, and are based on the terms of service as written (as opposed to the self-serving sophistry you have presented in the guise of an open-minded, academic inquiry -- quite burlesque, actually).
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI feel inclined to forget about you as you cannot be swayed by reasoned argument.
Damage control is all you have left, I fear: misrepresent the facts (including your own statements) to cover your retreat, and hope that nobody notices.
Meanwhile, you're attempting to drive a wedge into your opposition -- divide and weaken -- by appealing to the vanity of some while attempting to get them to accept your most troublesome critic as s ...[text shortened]... have presented in the guise of an open-minded, academic inquiry -- quite burlesque, actually).
Your profile says it all "My understanding is that no use of chess engines or computer chess is permitted to analyze/play games and I will rigorously adhere to this committment; however, the use of databases containing pre-existing games 'between human players' is permitted and I will be consulting these (free, online) sources in order to assist me in learning the game and selecting moves. (I will not consult database games involving players identified as computer software.)
"
You don't believe analysis with an engine nor consultation of a DB that has involved analysis with an engine to be acceptable whereas I do and I do not believe such analysis to be contary to the TOS as long as is not intended to assist with a current on going game. Many others can see my point and agree with it. I suspect Wormwood and Gatecrasher agree with me and do not agree with your somewhat extreme view.
This whole thread posed a legitimate question (in fact its title is a question). It was and remains a legitimate debate which I suspect is something you are both unable and unwilling to see or do. At no stage am I misrepresenting facts including my own statements, nor am I retreating in any way.
Originally posted by Dragon FireIf that limitation is to be applied strictly, then you cannot follow lines previously played in recent correspondence chess either (e.g. the world championship). Despite the fact that the players are human, there is to my knowledge no rule that prevents them from using engines during their games (in fact the WC explained how he does use them).
.... however, the use of databases containing pre-existing games between human players is permitted ....
I don't want to stir things up, but there is a limit to what a single site (like RHP) can reasonably try to enforce, and still be attractive in the modern world. It already starts by kicking out all 'kids below a certain age' (whatever the reason, the resulting decision would be a disastre for chess if all sites did that). Then I got a negative response concerning what would be allowed in 'unrated setup games' (the question was wether I could let a pupil analyse a position during a game when I wanted him/her to in a specific position). Now I read some of these 'ortodox' replies to what may well have been an honest question.
I would really encourage an open debate on all these issue, perhaps in a separate forum, perhaps guided/initiated by moderators, but not sticking the head in the sand as I feel is currently being done.
Originally posted by Mephisto2A very valid and true point.
If that limitation is to be applied strictly, then you cannot follow lines previously played in recent correspondence chess either (e.g. the world championship). Despite the fact that the players are human, there is to my knowledge no rule that prevents them from using engines during their games (in fact the WC explained how he does use them).
In any case how could I or anyone else tell if a game in a DB was human or computer (assisted)?
Also what about annotations which if not created by strong computer programs and certainly checked by them.
This whole area just gets more and more murky for genuine players who are attempting to play by the rules!
Originally posted by Dragon FireMany (top) OTB players are also using engine assistance in preparing their opening repertoire, and, for all we know, practising their endgames using Nalimov tables as well. Even Nunn's Chess Openings, nearly ten years old now, says in its introduction, "..while an analysis engine looked over the author's shoulder, ready to spot any nonsense that might otherwise creep into the book..."
A very valid and true point.
In any case how could I or anyone else tell if a game in a DB was human or computer (assisted)?
Also what about annotations which if not created by strong computer programs and certainly checked by them.
This whole area just gets more and more murky for genuine players who are attempting to play by the rules!
The only way to be sure that you are not following any computer analysis, however dilute, is to put the books, databases, and other reference material away, and consider the position yourself, from the very first move. In today's environment, as Mephisto says, I doubt that there are many who would not use references, because they will lose too many games to those who do.
In the end you have to follow your own moral compass, and accept that you going to face opponents who see things differently, even within the same rules and terms of service.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsSurely your formidable invective can find a more appropriate target than the question as to weather DF's inquiry indicates an intention to flout the rules of the site or not. Or do you pillory Dragons for laughs?
Damage control is all you have left, I fear: misrepresent the facts (including your own statements) to cover your retreat, and hope that nobody notices.
Meanwhile, you're attempting to drive a wedge into your opposition -- divide and weaken -- by appealing to the vanity of some while attempting to get them to accept your most troublesome critic as s ...[text shortened]... have presented in the guise of an open-minded, academic inquiry -- quite burlesque, actually).
1 edit
I often follow lines in the Morra played by Mladen Zelic. I suspect that he almost certainly uses Fritz or some such program to analyse various tough black defences in this gambit.
If I'm following a specialist player's prep that often extends well into the middlegame in very sharp & forcing lines (which also closely matches engine moves) then the only possible way to prove or disprove engine use is to look at endgame anomalies in my opinion.
e.g:
Game 3886585
Unfortunately I cannot take any credit for the exchanges that occur here to move 18 as it is all covered in Langrock's Morra book quite probably aided by engine analysis.
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI've not considered this debate to be about policing and proof but more an examination of what should be done in certain circumstances such as studying a completed game with an engine (OK by the rules) when there is another game with some similar features still in progress ...when the question arises just how dissimilar should the game to avoid flouting the rules.
I often follow lines in the Morra played by Mladen Zelic. I suspect that he almost certainly uses Fritz or some such program to analyse various tough black defences in this gambit.
If I'm following a specialist player's prep that often extends well into the middlegame in very sharp & forcing lines (which also closely matches engine moves) then the ...[text shortened]... ly possible way to prove or disprove engine use is to look at endgame anomalies in my opinion.
A game begins 1.e4...so should we not analyze with an engine any game that begins 1.e4 - I would argue that there is no problem here. But if the first eight moves of the completed game and the in progress game are identical then to use an engine on this completed game would be against the rules in my opinion as the engine analsysis may assist the in progress game.
Now somewhere between these two extremes there lies a grey area. Not a problem for me as I don't do so much engine analysis nor do I have that many games in progress so it's easy for me to avoid any conflict.
But I understand the question.
2 edits
Originally posted by GatecrasherYes, but a human being doesn't need to remember it. Here's a little scenario to demonstrate the potential ramifications of the loophole proposed by Dragon Fire:
. . . Once out of the opening book, the chances that a human being will remember the engine analysis of a specific position that may occur among the almost infinite number of possible positions, is astronomical. Prior engine research is an entirely pointless exercise for the average player. Again, the benefit of engines is in hindsight instruction...
Let's say I play a particular line of the Sicilian as Black. I might have twenty or more such games in play at any given time, since 1.e4 is common and many games beginning 1.e4 c5 will permit my pet opening.
After four or five moves, a particular variation of the line I play has been identified. Both I and my opponents are rated over 2000, and to an extent once an opening variation is chosen, a handful of subvariations become fairly predictable, like the choreography of a formal dance; and this is more true since I have access to the recent game histories of my opponents and know what they play; and with each additional move in the game, more information about likely middlegame scenarios is available to me.
Being an experienced player with access to books and databases, who is also something of an opening specialist, I know what White's strongest moves are, and have developed my own preferences for dealing with them: that, at least, is true within the first 8-10 moves of the opening variation. Beyond that point, however, there are many cases where a strong chess engine might help with a continuation, particularly if that aspect of the game is not my strong point.
Using any operating system which permits multi-tasking, I can run as many copies of a strong chess engine as I like, simultaneously, as separate processes. The time controls of correspondence chess are not especially demanding, and I am limited only by the technical specifications of my computer, or computers, as I may have more than one. The results of the engine analysis can be entered, either manually, or (better still) by means of an automated script, into my own personal opening database, which is searchable by position. When I get to a particular position outside my book knowledge, I can then see if this has been dealt with by my army of engines. Note that the possibility that this will be of use, using a single engine for a single game, may not be great, especially 8 moves ahead: but the possibility that *some* engine will analyze a position for *some* game, provided my engines run 24/7 and are making a systematic effort, directed by my own changing knowledge of where my games are going, is much better.
I would like to use engines to assist my ongoing games, but there is a problem: this is not permitted, and if done illicitly, and engine use should be detected, I could be banned. Note that this is really two problems: how to get around the ban on engine use in ongoing games; and how to cover myself in the event that engine use is detected.
Since I am concerned with continuations when games leave book (at the end of the variations most commonly occuring in games of strong players), I know that there are many finished games available which contain these positions. Some of the games are mine, and others are database games of other players, whether professional or amateur.
If my engines are used to analyze positions which my games in progress are most likely to reach, before they actually reach them, then I can claim that I am merely analyzing finished games, not analyzing the positions of existing games. I do a lot of this, and it should surprise nobody, since I have placed a statement in my RHP bio indicating that I concentrate on *extending* opening theory.
Even so, I am left with a problem: what happens if engine moves are detected in my games? How do I explain and justify this?
I know that many individuals, perfectly innocently, and without even being aware of it, use an engine to analyze a position from a past game, even though it could, theoretically (if improbably, in their case), come to have a bearing on a game that is ongoing at the time the engine analysis is done. They would be horrified by the suggestion that their innocent activity constitutes cheating under the terms of service as strictly construed, and glad to accept the "common sense interpretation" (loophole) I propose: that engine analysis done during ongoing games, if done on positions at the end of book, is legitimate research provided the position is sufficiently far ahead of those contained in any ongoing games. The exact limits remain hazy and therefore quite flexible. I start off talking about 12 moves, then bring this figure down by insensible degrees, to 10 and 8; mentioning in passing that in my own games I am lucky enough to be able to forecast the positions of my own games just 5 moves ahead. (But note that this method does not require *forecasting* for a specific game but merely for a universe of likely variations!)
If I can get a number of respectable players to jump on the bandwagon, then I am covered in the event that engine use is detected. Yes, I use engines to extend opening theory. Haven't I said so? But of course, I never use them to analyze the positions of ongoing games (which is strictly true). Sufficient doubt has been introduced: case dismissed.
Note that I do not have any basis for accusing Dragon Fire of such a scheme; nor am I making such an accusation. I merely note that, whenever someone introduces a radical re-interpretation of the rules, as he has, it is not sufficient to consider only the most innocent and common possibilities: if one wishes to understand the possible ramifications of such a modification, one must consider also the most egregious possibilities.
It is an old trick used by politicians and lawyers, to introduce modifications to the law whose justification, at the time they are introduced, is given in terms of innocent and easily understandable reasons, which others are likely to find attractive: but with a hidden agenda that they would not approve of if known.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThat rather lengthy post does invite a question in my mind...
Yes, but a human being doesn't need to remember it. Here's a little scenario to demonstrate the potential ramifications of the loophole proposed by Dragon Fire:
Let's say I play a particular line of the Sicilian as Black. I might have twenty or more such games in play at any given time, since 1.e4 is common and many games beginning 1.e4 c5 will perm ely to find attractive: but with a hidden agenda that they would not approve of if known.
If you suspect a player of using engine analysis why not look at their late middlegame/endgame play & look for match-ups there?
If they exist - report them.
If these moves match more than 75-80%+ in several games then they are almost certainly cheating. End of story.
Ironically, I think you are muddying the waters just as much as you claim Dragon Fire is.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchA loophole that could be used by others should be resisted whether any particular individual can be accused of making use of it. Also, I do not have access to strong chess engines. Furthermore, there is more than one engine in use and not all of them overlap in their recommendations: a systematic assessment would be necessary, and since I don't have even one such engine, I don't have five or six. Finally, I just got through saying that I have no basis for accusing Dragon Fire of using engine analysis, and that I am not in fact making any such accusation. I do, however, find his arguments suspicious -- but that isn't quite the same thing.
That rather lengthy post does invite a question in my mind...
If you suspect a player of using engine analysis why not look at their late middlegame/endgame play & look for match-ups there?
If they exist - report them.
If these moves match more than 75-80%+ in several games then they are almost certainly cheating. End of story.
Ironically, I think you are muddying the waters just as much as you claim Dragon Fire is.
Originally posted by Anatoly SmithGood try, and I fully support the underlying intent of your post. However:
I have not read the whole of this thread (life is too short)
But, I thougt the whole idea of chess was person vs person, to see who could think of the best move. If you are going to use computers to work out the best move then you may as well stop playing.
Regards
Anatoly
"Everything should be presented as simple as possible ... but not simpler than possible."
Einstein.