- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12476
Originally posted by VarenkaDijkstra. Not Djikstra, not Dikjstra, not Diikstra - Dijkstra. And he was right, but irrelevant, because nothing else shows the absence of bugs, either. Least of all his precious "program proofs".
The computer scientist Dikjstra had a famous saying "Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs". And how right he was.
Richard
Originally posted by ErekoseI'm no expert but;
If I recall correctly, kopatov is right on this one. The leadership at this site considers this (using computer analysis in future games) cheating. This seems really silly to me, as just about any analysis you find in books or on the web is likely to contain computer analysis, but I'm pretty sure that's the rule.
(b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
Why would it state "while" if it is illegal to do post-mortem analysis on your games?
The "pre-existing research materials" is pretty vague as well. I think engine vs engine databases are clearly illegal (they have to be as any cheat can simply state they have an X million database of private engine games to claims of cheating) but beyond that it is very gray. Are ICCF games illegal since there is no real doubt that engine use is heavily influencing play? Chessbase Magazine which is heavy on comp annotations?
None of this should matter for an honest player since in almost every game you will find yourself in a position you haven't seen before and from then on play is your own.
Although Marko Krale, Atlantean and a few others might have collected up an awfully big pool of prior games 🙂
Remember it is all conjecture on my part. It's just a theory.
Something to consider.
Hi Shallow Blue.
Re old masters and their notes. (you mention this earlier.)
Just picked up 'Power Chess' add that to the list of books with the wrong title.
(SImple Chess by Stean etc...)
It is a collection of articles written by Paul Keres.
Brilliant enlightening and so honest.
He mentions how now he getting older he tries to steer the game away from
severe complications (his younger opponents would not let him!).
The book claims he is the greatest annotator that ever lived.
Quite a bold claim but now even a quarter way though it I'm putting him
on par with Tartakower at the very least.
Printed by DM McKay, it's sub title is: Great Grandmaster Battles from Russia.
That should have been the main title. Get it!
Did You Know No.168.
Paul Keres has his face on the national currency in Estonia.
It's on a 5 Kroon Note. I have one.
Korch gave one to a Scottish player to give to me.
Neither Capablanca, Karpov or Kasparov have been honoured in that way.
http://ybnotes.com/cm/shoppic/2006549373045927.jpg
Originally posted by Shallow BlueHardly irrelevant in terms of reminding complacent testers of what they are actually proving. And the analogy on here, just because someone isn't proven to be a cheat, doesn't prove that they are not a cheat. Again, something very relevant that people need to keep in mind.
Dijkstra. Not Djikstra, not Dikjstra, not Diikstra - Dijkstra. And he was right, but irrelevant, because nothing else shows the absence of bugs, either. Least of all his precious "program proofs".
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12476
Originally posted by VarenkaTrue, but presumption of innocence must count for something, even on a web site.
Hardly irrelevant in terms of reminding complacent testers of what they are actually proving. And the analogy on here, just because someone isn't proven to be a cheat, doesn't prove that they are not a cheat. Again, something very relevant that people need to keep in mind.
Even for an... individual like skeeter.
Richard
Originally posted by VarenkaWe also must remember that not being proven to be a cheat does not necessarily mean they are a cheat.
Hardly irrelevant in terms of reminding complacent testers of what they are actually proving. And the analogy on here, just because someone isn't proven to be a cheat, doesn't prove that they are not a cheat. Again, something very relevant that people need to keep in mind.
Originally posted by DiophantusAgreed, of course. It is what it is - not proven one way or another.
We also must remember that not being proven to be a cheat does not necessarily mean they are a cheat.
Please don't read my comment out of context. It was in response to GP stating "A player who is not very good at chess soon gets caught cheating". This simply isn't true in all cases and I was responding to this idealistic attitude.
Originally posted by ErekoseDamn right, I'm right. According to Green Pawn, people are claiming that they use "box research" of "personal databases" which breaks the terms of use.
If I recall correctly, kopatov is right on this one. The leadership at this site considers this (using computer analysis in future games) cheating. This seems really silly to me, as just about any analysis you find in books or on the web is likely to contain computer analysis, but I'm pretty sure that's the rule.
If this is the ToS:
While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
And if a player now analyzes a finished game by using a box among other things to study the positions; and discovers a certain move superior to the one actually played; and upon reaching the same position in a new game plays this move...
Is that not pre-existing research material? Does the game not come from a database of previously played games between human players?
Or is this always a reference to chess engines, chess computers or assistance by a third party?
How about going over a game with a friend at the OTB club? And by that discovering also a better move? Is that move now forever forbidden, because it is an indirect assistance by a third party?
If the ToS are being interpreted that sharply, that not a single analysis of a previous game is allowed when somebody else is involved, almost all learning improvements have to be neglected. Because the new move one is seeing, has been taught by somebody else...
Hi
Remember it is specualtion.
Tharkesh is correct, you have to allow personal research. Else you stagnate.
What do you want him to do? keep on playing a bad move knowing it is a bad move.
If it's OK to use books. How do you know the book
(and there is an excellent chance of this) has not used box analysis.
Many people on here state they run a game played on here through a box
AFTER a game.
Got it.
OK to get box moves from a book - not from your own research by
running the game though a box AFTER your game.
Your'e a Publisher of opening books!
Hi V.
The not so good player cheating stands out like the preverbial sore thumb.
90+% match ups game after game. Totally error free.
They are not even good enough to play out a won postion given to them
by the box. Suddenly they are gone.
I suggest that one need not worry about the contents of databases. The pace at which action is taken against allegedly blatant computer users is almost glacial so I doubt anyone is going to be banned for having some games involving non-humans in their database. How would anyone know what I have in my database in any case? I might have games of dominoes for all anyone in charge knows.
Originally posted by greenpawn34But GP, how can you tell that they are all so obvious? You can't. A "not so good" player using subtle cheating won't stand out. Don't be mislead by the bunch of blatant cheats that have been banned from here - some cheats will make more of an effort to hide their tracks.
The not so good player cheating stands out like the preverbial sore thumb
Originally posted by greenpawn34Of course I use a box for my dominoes. What else would you expect me to carry them to the pub in?
Russ.
Diophantus is using a box for his dominoes games on [b]Red Hot Double Six.
I've run his dominoe games through FritzDom & RyBlanka
He never chaps and never goes to the boneyard. 110% match up.[/b]