Is this considering cheating?

Actually, a fun perversion of those rules is that if you roll a die to make your moves randomly, and you get *really lucky*, you've cheated!

I don't honestly think semantics are an issue though.

In response to #9, than any player who studies published games to prepare their opening moves would also be a cheat. How is that any different than studying engine prepared lines except that it is more old fashion. There is no such thing as getting really lucky, we are simply talking about your opponent blundering. That is not cheating.

#11 - If, every turn, you assigned a candidate move to each face of the die and then moved based what it rolls, that would be really interesting ... It sounds horrible but I'm going to try this tonight.

Also - Yes, using computer assistance during a game is cheating. Cheating is rule-based until you hit a situation that isn't covered by the rules, then the community should discuss and agree upon a rule that will cover that exception.

Looks like the guy involved cheated without cheating intention.

But there are a few weaknesses in his logic :

First he says "in a totally drawn endgame"
and then "To see if my theory was correct"
So, in fact, he was not sure.
Did he really use the computer to validate his evaluation of the position ?
If this is the case, why not using computer anytime we are not sure of our evaluation ?
Or was he just upset by draw offer beeing refused and got impatient ?

Second he says " i challenged stockfish level 8" , level 8 !
he didn't choose level 1 nor 2, nor 7, just 8 ^^
My logic by choosing this level is that this position was a draw for a GM, but not for an 2200 (level 7).
or this guy is only rated 2000, far away from 2200.

There will be these kind of strange behavior and judgement until people stop confuse between equal and draw.

#14 - What if he discovered a winning position that he would not otherwise have seen? The thought would be implanted and he could not erase it. That possibility has to be prevented, so use computer analysis after the game.

#9 Are you the kind of person that when read "Time flies like an arrow" start to wonder what is a "time fly" and how can such animals like an arrow?

Because I think it's pretty obvious for any human being that the definition of cheating you quote is associated to live games, not for preparation... Of course it doesn't say explicitly say "live games", but the definition is intended to be read by humans endowed by common sense, not by machines.

#12 #16
Thanks for your responses. I agree that any human 'endowed by common sense' understands what is cheating in OTB chess or fast online chess.

As to correspondence games, the situation is less clear. Can one really propose any reasonable version of rules under which the behaviour of #1 would have been cheating? I don't see.

Just an example, it does not work to say that 'engines are disallowed during the games' because correspondence games can last several months. In other words, this would forbid any use of engines for players who play correspondence games continously.

Actually, I have no clue of why engine use is considered 'cheating' in correspondence games. First, it is not clear where 'preparation' ends in correspondence games, and where the actual game begins. In particular, anyone can refute any cheating suspiction by saying that he played by preparation. Second, it is quite obvious that a correspondence player can use the engine without being caught. So this kind of rule just seems unnatural.

#17 - "In other words, this would forbid any use of engines for players who play correspondence games continously." --- NO ... Just don't run your position for a current game through the system...Sheesh, how is this so difficult to understand?

Thanks. This is a good point, but I do not think that your suggestion works. What's an exact definition of 'position for a current game'? Does it stand for any position that can possibly be obtained from current one?

If yes, it forbids any use of engines because any position you analyze can be obtained from starting position.

If 'position for a current game' means only a current position, then I can make a couple more moves manually and analyze this new non-current position. I do not think it is a significant restriction for those who use an engine.

If a 'position for a current game' means something else, what does it mean?

What is really 'so difficult to understand' is why we need a rule which
(a) cannot be expressed by words,
(b) can be neglected by anyone without being caught, and
(c) is being violated by almost everyone with or without intention.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.