Only Chess
26 Jan 07
26 Jan 07
You start a game! After a few moves when the line your opponent is playing is clear you look up some of his past games and find half a dozen with that line that he previously played (or even that someone else played).
You are now at move 4 and the next 6 moves are book anyway.
1). You download and analyse (using an engine) his previous 6 games from move 10 onwards?
2). You download and analyse other players games from move 10 onwards.
When you get to move 10 you play the improvments you (r engine) found.
If the concensus is that this would constitute abuse then consider this.
You have just completed and lost a Ruy Lopez (say) so you zap it in an engine and find some improvements which you store away for later use.
2 weeks later you are researching a move and this game comes up so you play your improvement. Legit? Well suppose you play it is a game which had already started when you analysed this game and lets say you were on move 4. If so and it is legit then did you answer to 1 or 2 above that it was abuse?
If so how can this not be abuse also?
and if this is the case is anyone innocent?
26 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by deeploserI don't disagree it seems to infringe 3b but what about the second part of the question.
3(b)
While you're not actively playing the game it should be fine. Post game analysis. But while in the game using an engine to assist you in the game is cheating. So you used it on another game just like the one you're playing. Looking up peoples games is fine it's a database after all.
The only difference between the 2 is that in the first case you were looking with a specific game in mind (if the game followed the same lines) and that in the second case you had no games in mind at the time but fortuitiously it was relevant.
and if the 1st option is contary to the TOS and the second is not how could anyone tell which applied.
Please understand this is a theoretical dilema only but it has been bothering me for some time and I have not wanted to analyse a lost KGA or Morra Gambit (2 of my favored openings) because I know I have 20 more ongoing, some of which are following similar lines to the previously lost games.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireI don't think either case falls under 3b.
You start a game! After a few moves when the line your opponent is playing is clear you look up some of his past games and find half a dozen with that line that he previously played (or even that someone else played).
You are now at move 4 and the next 6 moves are book anyway.
1). You download and analyse (using an engine) his previous 6 games from ...[text shortened]... s abuse?
If so how can this not be abuse also?
and if this is the case is anyone innocent?
You're allowed to analyze completed games with engines, and there is no guarantee that your in-progress game at move 4 will reach the engine-analyzed position at move 10. Your opponent might choose a different variation, or abandon the book lines altogether.
As you rightly point out, if your engine analysis of the old game had been done before the new game started, there would be no question that the analysis from the old game can be used in the new game. This is preparation, not engine abuse.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by deeploserShould correspondence players give up all engine-based study of openings for years on end? I think not.
3(b)
While you're not actively playing the game it should be fine. Post game analysis. But while in the game using an engine to assist you in the game is cheating. So you used it on another game just like the one you're playing. Looking up peoples games is fine it's a database after all.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireWith no other games going on it would be an easy answer. The next game you play would have you armed with more knowledge. You're doing it to improve your play.
I don't disagree it seems to infringe 3b but what about the second part of the question.
The only difference between the 2 is that in the first case you were looking with a specific game in mind (if the game followed the same lines) and that in the second case you had no games in mind at the time but fortuitiously it was relevant.
and if the 1st op ...[text shortened]... I have 20 more ongoing, some of which are following similar lines to the previously lost games.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by deeploserYes, with no other games it is easy to decide this is okay, but, for most players, there are always some other games going on and some of them are bound to follow lines in the games you are now analysing using an engine (analysing without an engine is obviously never a problem).
With no other games going on it would be an easy answer. The next game you play would have you armed with more knowledge. You're doing it to improve your play.
26 Jan 07
My personal feeling: If I were to deviate at move 10, and you selected a move you previously analyzed with a computer, I’d have no problem with it. I’d consider it no different than if we were following a “book” line I was unaware of (which often happens…one player’s book ends and the other is still following published analysis for a few moves.) Within a move or two I’m probably not going to play what the computer did and you’ll be on you own anyway. I seriously doubt a computer generated move or two in the early opening will affect the outcome. My problem would be if you were using the computer after every move.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by rotkI think its gets a little gray, as DragonFire suggests. If I play the same lines in OTB, here, other correspondence sites, and in blitz, and if I run detailed analysis of all or most of these games, I'm bound to run analysis on a current position. If I then play a move suggested by the computer, or even consider it, it would seem that I'm in violation of the rules here.
if you analzye the game that is done, and other games are following that same line, I don't think it is cheating. As long as you don't put the exact game in progress in the engine, I think it's legal
(I should note that I consider the 1000s of engine-engine games in my databases fully legitimate resources.)
Now, these incidental points of convergence are not likely to lead to banning, and seem a bit different than intentional cheating. But, the ethical question remains. Does a rigorous observation of the ban on engine use mean that we can only analyze our French Defense games, for example, when all current games as black are Sicilians?
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by masscatThat is of course contary to the TOS. I am talking about looking for another move (by analysing previous games) significantly (at least 6 moves) ahead of where you are at the moment, not within the next few moves.
My personal feeling: If I were to deviate at move 10, and you selected a move you previously analyzed with a computer, I’d have no problem with it. I’d consider it no different than if we were following a “book” line I was unaware of (which often happens…one player’s book ends and the other is still following published analysis for a few moves.) Within a mo ...[text shortened]... g will affect the outcome. My problem would be if you were using the computer after every move.
You are, of course correct, one may find an innovation at move 10 but by move 12 be out of this analysis so the impact should not be significant.
26 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireI had a similiar problem and I don't remember exactly what the peoples response were but they were harsh and I accepted them and agree with them.
You start a game! After a few moves when the line your opponent is playing is clear you look up some of his past games and find half a dozen with that line that he previously played (or even that someone else played).
You are now at move 4 and the next 6 moves are book anyway.
1). You download and analyse (using an engine) his previous 6 games from ...[text shortened]... s abuse?
If so how can this not be abuse also?
and if this is the case is anyone innocent?
I say it's not legal.
I was playing a game with another fellow and we were following capablance (me, white) vs some other fellow (black). Capa lost the game. So we were following it line for line, 15 moves deep so far. I don't think my opponent knew but I did. Anyways, why couldn't I fast forward the game and get my computer to analyse from move 20 onwards? Then if by coincedence, on move 20 we are still following the game I could use the analyse.
That's wrong.
Now on the other hand, if the game is completely finished and you analyses it and next time there is another game, ya sure use that analysis.
The difference is, one game is still in progress. You looked up the games with the intention of using the analysis to help you in that specific game which you are still playing.
So I think it's wrong and not morally correct.
Edit: how do you decide to go 5 moves ahead? Why not go only 4 or 3 moves ahead? Where do you draw that line?
26 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FirePersonally it wouldn't bother me if an opponent did that. Sooner or later he's going to have to start making moves on his own anyway.
[b]I am talking about looking for another move (by analysing previous games) significantly (at least 6 moves) ahead of where you are at the moment, not within the next few moves.b]