143 ( +1 | -1 ) What standard for Corr. Chess in general?Recently GK decided not to allow Namilov endgame databases ... and this is not questioning that decision. Rather an interesting point was raised there by bogg about Correspondence Chess in general. Basically as to whether there is a general standard of acceptible-use materials. Again, as far as I am concerned GK's stance is clear on the matter of that thread. What I am interested in knowing is about the rest of the world of corr. type chess, whether online or postal ... Does it aor should it demonstrate a standard that anything "published" would be fair use for playing it? And the real matter that concerns me in that thought is: What is "PUBLISHED"? How is that term to be defined, or how IS it defined elsewhere. Or is there a different standard used elsewhere, or Any standard for that matter. Should there be? Where is Corr Chess headed in general? Especially with computer considerations ever-present these days ... Should everyone give in to the advent of the "Box" and say, 'okay we cant avoid them, let computers in' like ICCF did?! And some other sites do. For eg our match counterparts FICGS (although they have agreed not to use them, for the match) allow their use upon that site. OR should there simply be a widespread assortment of sites of varied rules, as now, and everyone can find a place that suits them? Where is it all headed?
17 ( +1 | -1 ) What's the sense?Well, you can't prove somebody using software to generate moves, also you can't prove somebody using Nalimov database. Than why to prohibit them? I don't understand.
224 ( +1 | -1 ) Oh noes...Seriously - why in the name of [enter name yourself] would anyone want to allow the use of engines? Whoever wants to play versus an engine, do it... at home! Why join a website for that? And whoever wants to play with the help of an engine - I suppose, you'd make the Olympic 10.000 meters in a car? 200 m freestyle in a motorboat? That's what I don't understand.
Craig, "we can't avoid them" cannot be reason enough to allow them. And it could be avoided, if everybody would not use them. Naive, I know, but as long as the use of engines remains forbidden, an great majority will stick to it. By that, your chances to get a real game is good enough to look over some few cheaters. If you'll allow it, people either will have to use them, too, to get fair competition, or else will leave. I know I wouldn't play on a site that allows it.
One more thought on this subject: many players won't use engines even if allowed because they are not interested in ratings or winning percentage that do not display their own achievement. Do not underestimate the power of sportsmanship. Players that are interested in the sports itself won't play chess for ratings, but for the pleasure that the game itself provides. I dare say that many cheaters do not enjoy their cheap earned points, knowing how they did it. They'll still feel inferior, and it serves them right.
On the subject of what is "published": "Published" would have to be equalized with "equally accessable to everyone on the particular site". IMO, a book being published somewhere in the world will never fulfill that, so it would have to be a resource that is availabe -everytime to every member -without charge (or else, bigger wallets will win some games instead of better players) Without these two conditions, I do not think that you could allow free use of that source. That leaves us with a downloadable script, preferably provided by that site. But still... it's fishy.
P.S. Quick check - can you name three great COMPUTER World Championships Competitions like Capablanca-Aljechin, Karpov-Kasparov, Spasski-Fischer without peeking? See - chess between two machines is the definition for boredom...
105 ( +1 | -1 ) We might have to come to a different...... word from "published". It is my belief that TableBases come under the definition of published material. Yet the use of TableBases is clearly unfair, in their effect indistinguishable from engines, except insofar as TableBases are 100% reliable (I presume). In some positions, books can prescribe moves. In a simple K+P vs K endgame w a primer in my possession prescribes 1.Ke6 as the (only) move that wins. Of course, this knowledge is now second nature to a lot of us, but we had to learn it. For, say, a beginner without possession of this knowledge, is use of the book legitimate? I think yes, and I'm sure gameknot (GK) would agree. GK rules, and CC rules in general don't exclude this kind of material. GK excludes TableBases specifically and explicitly. I don't think it could be done any other way. Material or resources considered illegitimate for the purposes of play on GK might have to be listed, rather than some attempt be made of a general definition or description. Engines and TableBases. Anything else?
331 ( +1 | -1 ) djole73 ... And EveryoneI have to disagree with the premise that it cannot be proven if someone uses software to generate moves. IMO I believe it Can be proven ... even "beyond a reasonable doubt" if someone wants to invest sufficient resources to that task. But certainly by a preponderance of evidence. Particularly given a sufficient history of the player and large sampling of their games. The difficult part, it seems to me, is only determining When they used the software ... during the game, or before the game began for building a very detailed database from software suggestions which they would later follow. Of course, I think that even this could ultimately be determined ... if one wanted to invest the resources that is. Which is not to say it could ever be a cost effective pursuit, as far as I can see. But having been involved in investigative pursuits, I have to believe that most people tend to believe their personal actions and information are considerably more private than tends to be born out by reality. Imo. There is always someone who knows what's happening... *** Personally tho, I like to feel the "Honor System" still holds some merit, as ganstaman suggests too. Or if not, at least it is comforting to pretend ...perhaps even to believe there are still Some "Good-Guys" left in the world. Perhaps this is quite naive, yet I like to help stretch the illusion as far as it will go, if such it is, by trying to be one of them while playing Chess. And there Do seem to be quite a number of others in a similar pursuit right here at GK. From what I've seen here . . . * * * * * Tho I must express concern to see persons now cheating in IM+ level otb competition(s), as to whether Chess can continue to be seen as a unifying force which can unite persons across geopolitical & philosophical lines. Yet since it managed to retain its image in spite of the turmoil in most WC matches since (including) 1972 ... perhaps it will make it past computers, and their potential for corruption too !? I do hope so. * * * * I have this theory at least. Perhaps when times come to such a state, that there are too many wrongdoers to catch, too many to punish or rehabilitate ... then maybe the only thing left is for those who seek more to refuse to accept the wrongdoing. And to further the good things, until more & more people begin to focus upon the good things, and we begin to believe again in Good Guys, and Heros, and honorable persons ... because we've all come to know some. Until that point where there are so many in the legions of Right-doers, that it becomes harder for anyone to envision why someone would want to be anything less ?! * * * While This must seem an exceedingly innocent notion, it is something I've seen happen. Perhaps its just that everyone gets tired of wrongdoing, duplicity, purveyors of transparent cunning ... all at the same time. Perhaps they want to reach for something better. Or maybe the stars align right ... ** Still, I have to think it would be worth the wait & wondering, to see again. On the otherhand, its been something of a wait already ... How about we just start, and Do it right now ?