Anonymous engine user poll?

I've been doing some thinking after the many discussions on whether people use engines or not.
To really try and estimate the size of the problem we would need an anonymous poll, allowing RHP players to tell us themselves. This can hardly be done within this site, as people would suspect that their answers would be traced in some way.
My suggestion is that I set up a poll on my site. This could be done without any login - only some safety procedure (cookie/IP) to prevent people from voting more than once.

My questions are:
Would that be an idea?
Would people answer honestly?
What do you think, Russ?
Would the result be of any use?

I'm not quite sure, please help me...

cludi

Originally posted by cludi
I've been doing some thinking after the many discussions on whether people use engines or not.
To really try and estimate the size of the problem we would need an anonymous poll, allowing RHP players to tell us themselves. This can hardly b ...[text shortened]... be of any use?

I'm not quite sure, please help me...

cludi

Nice idea in principle, but:-

A. For an accurate picture you would need everyone to vote
B. For an accurate picture you would need everyone who votes to vote honestly
C. I know there are engine users as do other RHP members, what use to us and what benefit would we get knowing how many there is.
D. How would you use the result?

I think the result would be interesting to see but I can't see any use it could be, would you want to spend your time setting this up just to get a useless and probable innaccurate result, if so then set this up. Personally I would like to play chess than waste my time setting up something that would not benefit anyone.

I would like to see something more constructive done to tackle the issue rather than trying to ascertain the size of the problem when we already know there is a problem there and of its relevant size

As I indicated in my post I'm fully aware of the flaws of such a poll.
The primary objective would be to make admins realize that the problem is there. At the end of the day, Russ is the one who has to take some kind of action - happy not to be in his shoes :-)

cludi

Originally posted by cludi
As I indicated in my post I'm fully aware of the flaws of such a poll.
The primary objective would be to make admins realize that the problem is there. At the end of the day, Russ is the one who has to take some kind of action - happy not to be in his shoes :-)

cludi

I am not trying to rubbish the idea but I imagine Russ is aware fully of the extent of the problem, you just gotta look at some of the topics in the forums, and gettin an innaccurate figure is not going to make up his or anyone elses mind that there is a problem, I think we already know there is.

Originally posted by cludi
I've been doing some thinking after the many discussions on whether people use engines or not.
To really try and estimate the size of the problem we would need an anonymous poll, allowing RHP players to tell us themselves. This can hardly be done within this site, as people would suspect that their answers would be traced in some way.
My suggestion is that ...[text shortened]... think, Russ?
Would the result be of any use?

I'm not quite sure, please help me...

cludi

We already know there are engine users on the site, and we already know that they're dishonest. Therefore a poll would just be a lot of honest people telling the truth that they don't use engines, and a lot of dishonest people lying that they don't use engines. I'm sure the result of the poll will be that nearly 100% of respondents say they don't use engines! So what's the problem then? 😕

-Dave

Originally posted by David Tebb
We already know there are engine users on the site, and we already know that they're dishonest. <snip>

-Dave

[slightly off-topic]
It's not true that all engine users are dishonest. Some are ill-informed. I used an engine to check for blunders during one or two of my early games. I thought it was OK, because I wasn't using it to suggest a move, but to show what the likely consequences of a proposed move would be.

I realised pretty soon that I was wrong - I am an obsessive reader of small print - but my point is that some engine users may be naive. Perhaps that part of the TOS could be emphasised a bit more on the sign-up screen.

Originally posted by RolandYoung
[slightly off-topic]
It's not true that all engine users are dishonest. Some are ill-informed.

I think this is the best we can do. Make it more obvious to those who are new to correspondence chess that engines are not acceptable. I never used an engine, but when I started at RHP I would sometimes discuss ongoing games with friends. This, too, should be discouraged more obviously. I naively thought that discussing ongoing games was like over-the-board kibitzing -- but it's not if my opponent can't hear what's being said.

Some people are going to use engines, and attempts to combat that are mostly misguided. I had a good game going with a high-ranked player who suspected some of his other opponents were using an engine, so he resigned a slew of games to lower his rating as a way to punish the engine-users. The net result is that he allowed those alleged engine users to ruin not only their own games, but my game as well.

The point is, correspondence chess always has and always will depend, ultimately, on the honor system. One cannot apply a technical solution to a problem that is not technical in nature. The best we can do is bolster the honor system by making the rules clearer to new players.