08 Jul 06
Originally posted by blowfishANY use an engine during a game is a violation. If you feed your moves into Fritz while the game is in progress you are committing a violation of the TOS. Even if it is "check up" on your opponent, the only valid time to use an engine is after the game is finished.
I was suggesting I put MY moves into Fritz and see if Fritz makes the same moves as my opponent. How can that be a violation?
08 Jul 06
Originally posted by MixoNo.
(b) You will not consult any third party to assist you in any game. Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
Can anyone else see a contradiction in this rule?
A "third party" is a living, breathing person. Books and databases in correspondence chess are valid sources of in-game research.
Basically you can use established theory, but you have to do the work and make the decisions yourself.
09 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by GatecrasherSo, it's OK to repeatedly pit engine against engine and build up a large database of engine moves, such database to be used in future correspondance games here?
Well, unless you have a crystal ball (which works), I don't see much point in using an engine before a game. But if you really want to, go ahead.
09 Jul 06
Originally posted by cashthetrashPerfectly legal. Once a move is made it becomes part of "chess theory", provided it is recorded, of course.
If you are playing an opponent and you see a move you like during that game. And you say to yourself, hey I like that move, I think I will use that move in one of my other games. Is that legal? Once a move is made it then becomes part of a database correct?
Beyond the opening phase, however, it is extremely unlikely that the exact position that occured in one game, will reoccur in another. For that reason, databases are generally of use only during openings.
09 Jul 06
Originally posted by GatecrasherAfter about 10 moves (unless you're playing something like the semi-slav) the chances of a DB following the game still are very low.
Perfectly legal. Once a move is made it becomes part of "chess theory", provided it is recorded, of course.
Beyond the opening phase, however, it is extremely unlikely that the exact position that occured in one game, will reoccur in another. For that reason, databases are generally of use only during openings.
09 Jul 06
1 edit
And of course the games are recorded on RHP in your game history, both finished and ongoing. And that is a database correct. So in effect it is very easy to copy the moves. So in theory couldn't you go an entire game? And if an opponent was using an engine unknown to you, and you coppied their moves, they would be cheating and you wouldn't? That seems like a very fine grey line if that is the case between database and engine use. I want to make sure I positivly understand this correctly.
09 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasDue to the influence of Jupiter in your star sign, this week is a time to seize opportunities, or long regret their passing. Around wednesday a series of pawn moves will require deep consideration. Friday the influence of Mercury increases and bishop moves are ill advised. Remember "look after your pawns and your pieces will look after themselves"
Is it really legal to use a crystal ball (that works)?
May I use such a device during the game also?
Mystic Meaner Chess Astrologer 😵
I would guess consulting psychics is off limits 😲
09 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn practice, even running your engines for several hundred years, you may only be able to extract a few extra opening moves beyond the current large databases.
So, it's OK to repeatedly pit engine against engine and build up a large database of engine moves, such database to be used in future correspondance games here?
My database has over 4 million games. Let's say you generate one engine vs engine game per hour. It would take you 456 years to generate a database of equivalent size. Yet, my database is pretty useless much beyond established opening lines. So I'm confident your engine generated one would be too.
But let's enter into science fiction for a moment and assume that you did succeed in producing a virtual solution to chess (ie engine generated tablebases for 32 pieces and downwards, with storage requirements beyond anything currently available on Earth) so that your database would have the answer for any possible chess position, then I guess your "database" would run the risk of being mistaken for an engine by the RHP game mods. And IMO deservedly so.
Anyone trying to use a "database" defence for a charge of engine abuse is not going to be taken seriously. At least for the foreseeable future.
In short, if you use a database that has a high proportion of engine moves, it may negatively impact any investigation into your games. I'm not convinced, however, that the impact would be at all significant, since even the database you propose will not help you much beyond the opening phases of a game. But that is a risk you run. So my advice is to avoid databases that have a large number of engine generated moves.