Looking up end game positions considered cheati...

Originally posted by Mad Rook
So I can assume that you intend to personally change the TOS to clarify this? Just wondering.

It has been brought up before, I remember hearing the rule.

I would be happy to change the TOS - but I'm pretty sure I don't have that kind of authority. 🙂

Originally posted by cmsMaster
It has been brought up before, I remember hearing the rule.

I would be happy to change the TOS - but I'm pretty sure I don't have that kind of authority. 🙂

The point that I was making was that the acceptablility of using EGTBs was being debated in this thread by a number of knowledgeable people with no clear consensus, other than possibly that the TOS should be clarified. If you were absolutely certain that EGTBs aren't allowed, you could have helped out everyone here by pointing us to the definitive proof. Having read the thread that Varenka posted, it still seems that the issue isn't completely settled. So I think it would be a good idea for the powers that be to clarify the TOS on this issue so that people don't have to continue the guessing game.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
The point that I was making was that the acceptablility of using EGTBs was being debated in this thread by a number of knowledgeable people with no clear consensus, other than possibly that the TOS should be clarified. If you were absolutely certain that EGTBs aren't allowed, you could have helped out everyone here by pointing us to the definitive proof. Ha ...[text shortened]... be to clarify the TOS on this issue so that people don't have to continue the guessing game.

Agree. And, does the Shredder endgame "database" qualify as an EGTB?

Originally posted by Mad Rook
The point that I was making was that the acceptablility of using EGTBs was being debated in this thread by a number of knowledgeable people with no clear consensus, other than possibly that the TOS should be clarified. If you were absolutely certain that EGTBs aren't allowed, you could have helped out everyone here by pointing us to the definitive proof. Ha ...[text shortened]... be to clarify the TOS on this issue so that people don't have to continue the guessing game.

Whether you can access your tablebase with or without the engine running is irrelevant. The tablebases are generated by engines, thus not allowed. Seriously, think about it, a tablebase will give you the exact moves needed to win, could be 50+ moves.

Gatecrasher is a game mod. Read his post here...
Thread 40977

It is a pity that the TOS hasn't been updated and it has been requested before.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Whether you can access your tablebase with or without the engine running is irrelevant. The tablebases are generated by engines, thus not allowed. Seriously, think about it, a tablebase will give you the exact moves needed to win, could be 50+ moves.

Gatecrasher is a game mod. Read his post here...
Thread 40977

It is a pity that the TOS hasn't been updated and it has been requested before.

D

I've already PM'd Gatecrasher for answers.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
I've already PM'd Gatecrasher for answers.

So/Why? He's already given a comprehensive response in the thread I linked to above.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Whether you can access your tablebase with or without the engine running is irrelevant. The tablebases are generated by engines, thus not allowed. Seriously, think about it, a tablebase will give you the exact moves needed to win, could be 50+ moves.

Gatecrasher is a game mod. Read his post here...
Thread 40977

It is a pity that the TOS hasn't been updated and it has been requested before.

D

I'm not really arguing for the use of EGTBs. I actually would prefer that they not be allowed, as your reasoning seems sound to me. It's just that this issue doesn't seem to want to die; It keeps getting resurrected.

But this whole issue is confusing as heck to me. So 11 months ago (or more), Gatecrasher posted a clarification to TOS 3b somewhere, with some type of implied request to "Russ" that the clarification be added to the TOS. Yet here it is 11 months (or more) later, and it still hasn't been added to the TOS? Gatecrasher didn't state in his posting exactly where this clarification to 3b was made. Is the clarification still posted somewhere other than his April 3, 2006 posting in that old thread?

Maybe there's a good reason why this EGTB clarification hasn't been added to rule 3b, but if there is one, it certainly hasn't been conveyed to the RHP population. If I were a cynical person, I might think that rule 3b was purposefully being kept vague so that undesirables who used EGTBs could be easily jettisoned from the site. Good thing I'm not a cynical person, though. 🙂

Originally posted by Ragnorak
So/Why? He's already given a comprehensive response in the thread I linked to above.

D

I did it about an hour or two before you posted that.

Just to confirm:

A clarification of Section 3(b) of the Terms of Service

It is extremely unlikely that a database, no matter how large, would be consulted thoughout a game of reasonable length by both players. However, if a past game was substantially followed, and was orginally played by one or more computers/engines, it could be considered as evidence of engine use. The onus, therefore, is on each player to avoid relying on such games in their databases. The prior existence of engine games would not be considered a defence against engine use.

A database, for the purposes of the Terms of Service, should consist of previously played games only. An endgame tablebase, i.e. Namilov, is not a database under this definition. Using an endgame tablebase to assist you in a game is cheating and a violation of section 3(b).

- The Game Mod Team

This rule clarification stands.

I will take the matter up with the admins to ensure that the TOS is updated to reflect this.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
A database, for the purposes of the Terms of Service, should consist of previously played games only. An endgame tablebase, i.e. Namilov, is not a database under this definition. Using an endgame tablebase to assist you in a game is cheating and a violation of section 3(b).

- The Game Mod Team

This rule clarification stands.[/b]

Gatecrasher, thanks for the confirmation. Until the clarification gets added to Rule 3b, is this clarification posted in a convenient place where people can find it easily, or do we just have to keep pointing back to these threads?

Also, in the second paragraph of the clarification, I do have one tiny, tiny suggestion. (I'm not a nitpicking kind of guy, but other people might be.) I noticed that it states, "... i.e., Namilov, is not...". The Latin abbreviation i.e. means "that is", so the use of i.e. sort of implies that you're only concerned with Nalimov EGTBs, and no other types of EGTBs. Probably you should change this phrase to, "... e.g., Nalimov, is not...". The Latin abbreviation "e.g.", which means "for example", is more fitting in this case. (Or you could also just use "for example" instead of "e.g.". People get these two abbreviations mixed up all of the time.)

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Gatecrasher, thanks for the confirmation. Until the clarification gets added to Rule 3b, is this clarification posted in a convenient place where people can find it easily, or do we just have to keep pointing back to these threads?

Also, in the second paragraph of the clarification, I do have one tiny, tiny suggestion. (I'm not a nitpicking kind of guy, ...[text shortened]... nstead of "e.g.". People get these two abbreviations mixed up all of the time.)

Excellent point. With the i.e. in place one might conclude that Nalimov tablebases are forbidden, but Thompson tablebases are okay.

RHP should do what GameKnot has done and forbid Tablebases whether Nalimov or Thompson or your own generated ones.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Gatecrasher, thanks for the confirmation. Until the clarification gets added to Rule 3b, is this clarification posted in a convenient place where people can find it easily, or do we just have to keep pointing back to these threads?

Also, in the second paragraph of the clarification, I do have one tiny, tiny suggestion. (I'm not a nitpicking kind of guy, ...[text shortened]... nstead of "e.g.". People get these two abbreviations mixed up all of the time.)

Good point. I'm obviously one of those people who gets those abbreviations muddled up!

I think 3(b) needs a general rewording. I think the phrase "chess software" is also far too general.

The clarification only appears in forum posts. It does need to be incorporated into the TOS. At least to make the rules clear on what is, and what is not, a "database".

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Good point. I'm obviously one of those people who gets those abbreviations muddled up!

I think 3(b) needs a general rewording. I think the phrase "chess software" is also far too general.

The clarification only appears in forum posts. It does need to be incorporated into the TOS. At least to make the rules clear on what is, and what is not, a "database".

However this leaves open the posibility of using sites such as the OP posted (http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Center_Squares/K_v_KBandRP.htm ) which explain how to mate/win in a given situation as I presume they are equivalent to using a book to learn the same ideas?

Thanks for weighing in Gatecrasher.

Just to clarify and opening/engame BOOKS allowed. Sorry I'm new