Originally posted by BigDoggProblemTough call. Studying before the game is fine. You don't know the exact location of the pieces but once the game has started you know exactly where everything is and might be.
Let's say you are playing an opponent who loves to trade down to the endgame. So, before the game, you do engine analysis of Rook and pawn endings, and King and pawn endings, just to brush up. No problem, right?
Now, fast forward to move 10. Queens are traded. Is the player still ethically allowed to study R+P endings with an engine?
How about a ...[text shortened]... ing is deemed unethical?
And that's without introducing the complication of previous games.
Well, let me ask this question then.
You are on move 10, your move and you see this combination/tactic 6 moves deep all forced.
So you get your engine and analysis from move 16 onwards, once the tactic has been played out.
Now you play the tactic in your game and you have all the analysis with you from that position. Surely that is cheating.
I say, if you have to question it then it probably is wrong/bad idea/cheating.
topicI say any time anyone takes a similar game regardless where the game is and does anything with an engine to help has cheated. If you want to get their games and look for similarities, do it with your mind to prepare.
Once you are working a game, and you pull up any similar instance of your given position with an engine you have used that engine to cheat.
If you work those moves with your brain, that is fine... but once that engine comes on any time you are in a game you've used that engine to help regardless how much that engine actually helped you.
P-
1 edit
The real answer here is if you intentionally go through a study or opening (with engine help) to beat that practicular person, or win that game in paticular, than that is cheating!
But on the other hand if you are going through an opening line that you want to beat or a type of study on endgames, but the reason is because you lost a game in that line and want to know the best move, [not because you have other games going on in that same line, and you want to use this "new move" in those games currently still going (which is cheating)]. than that is not cheating.
It's all in the reasoning
Originally posted by rotkThe issue of intent may address the ethical issues, but it is much harder to measure intent when rules enforcement is the issue.
The real answer here is if you intentionally go through a study or opening (with engine help) to beat that practicular person, or win that game in paticular, than that is cheating!
But on the other hand if you are going through an opening line that you want to beat or a type of study on endgames, but the reason is because you lost a game in that line and wa ...[text shortened]... still going (which is cheating)]. than that is not cheating.
It's all in the reasoning
Originally posted by RahimKI think RahimK hit the nail on the head. I can give an example which came up in my very first game here.
Tough call. Studying before the game is fine. You don't know the exact location of the pieces but once the game has started you know exactly where everything is and might be.
Well, let me ask this question then.
You are on move 10, your move and you see this combination/tactic 6 moves deep all forced.
So you get your engine and analysis from move 16 ...[text shortened]... is cheating.
I say, if you have to question it then it probably is wrong/bad idea/cheating.
Game 2951175
Maybe a year ago I was playing around with some gambit ideas in Nimzo type positions in the English/Catalan. The idea is similar to the albin (..e5 dxe5 d4) but with the pinned knight at c3 and blacks knight at f6. I wanted to make sure that after exf6 Qxf6 black would not simply be down a piece. The main tactical point being that if the white queen strays too far from c3 then the d pawn becomes a street cleaner down the long diagonal. I plugged it into an engine and worked through some lines. Everything worked out though black was still down a pawn.
Fast-forward to this year and a similar position came up on RHP. I had lost the file (new computer) but still remembered the ideas. After working through some of the differences (does it matter if my knight goes to a6 instead of c6?) I went ahead and played 5) .. d5 . I used ideas from a position I had analyzed with the help of an engine a year ago. Was this cheating? Of course not.
Now, say I still had the analysis either printed, written, or in a PGN. If I opened up that year old engine assisted analysis and used it in a game in a position that was similar or even exactly the same would that be cheating? Of course not. This is correspondence chess. You're supposed to (be able to) use prior analysis, databases, books, etc. Look at the USCF rules.
Now, say that I hadn't done any prior analysis of a gambit of the e5 pawn in Nimzo type positions in the English/Catalan. In my game on RHP after whites move 5) d4 I said 'Hmm, I wonder.." and plugged the position after ..d5 6) exd5 d4 7) exf3 Qxf3 into Rybka and let the engine chew on it for a few days. I then used that analysis to decide whether or not to play 5) ...d5 would that be cheating? Come on, you know it is. Splitting hairs to make yourself feel better --"It's not cheating if it's six moves ahead in a forced sequence"-- is childish.
I thought it was strange that there were so many posts on "How do I get to this arbitrary rating number" and few on "How do I gain a better understanding of chess?". Why not just go ahead and give yourself an honorary rating of 1800, or 2200, or 12000? Congratulations, you win!! You now have a fake honorary rating of 12000 on an internet site. You can now quit playing chess forever because you kick so much a*s!!
Note that when I say 'cheating' I mean in the context of playing in an organization where engine use is forbidden. Curious that the ICCF still doesn't have such a rule.
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm
Dragon Fire I know this is a theoretical discussion that you started. This is a gray area for some I suppose. Not for me. I play chess to learn and compete.
Originally posted by giantrobotThank you! Just what I meant.
I think RahimK hit the nail on the head. I can give an example which came up in my very first game here.
Game 2951175
Maybe a year ago I was playing around with some gambit ideas in Nimzo type positions in the English/Catalan. The idea is similar to the albin (..e5 dxe5 d4) but with the pinned knight at c3 and blacks knight at f6. I wante ...[text shortened]... a gray area for some I suppose. Not for me. I play chess to learn and compete.
Okay I found the game I was talking about.
It was Capablanca vs _____.
I tried searching RHP for RahimK + Capablanca but couldn't find the thread.
Same question I asked and I got some really good and stern answers. One was from Wulb. as usual 🙂 and maybe DF? If i'm not mistakes your guys comments are less stern in this thread then in mine 😕
Anyone who had better searching tools could look for it. I'm not very good at it.