Oooh new TOS
I'm glad something is finally being done about it :)
You may wish to compare to the USCF rules for correspondence - as a reference, not as something binding, to see what is being done elsewhere in the world:
>3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not
>other players. You cannot use a computer or computer program
>(chessplaying algorithms) to evaluate a game, but you
>may use computers for record keeping and databases.
I don't agree with danegraphics' interpretation of "opening book".
I give a link to the Association of Correspondence Chess in the Czech Republic: http://skscr.cz/korespondecni-sach/
The second sentence ... they can use all forms of support during the game, ie they can, for example, look at the literature, consult with other people, analyze with the help of computers, etc.
No restrictions, no cheating.
You will find the truth of chess.
What would be the point of correspondence if it literally comes down to engines playing eachother
Correspondence chess enriches classic chess with new variants. E.g. Scottish Game (1824-6 Edinburgh London). How else do you really want to bring something new than with the help of all the best?
That was ages before the invention of engines
I'm more interested in the principle.
By enabling everything, you eliminate cheating.
By using the best, you will achieve better results, more accurate variants, deeper truths ... Everyone at their level.
We already have a solution for players who want to play "Centaur Chess": bot accounts. Those accounts are unfortunately not allowed to post games in the lobby, but they can send challenges.
Additionally, I *think* you are allowed to "cheat" in unrated games (whether correspondence or not) *if* your opponent is aware of and consents to it, making bot accounts unnecessary if you don't care about ratings. I see no such exception in the Terms of Service (that's another thing that could be added to them), but I remember hearing this from reputable sources.
> you are allowed to "cheat" in unrated games [...] *if* your opponent is aware of and consents to it
This used to be the case, but it is not anymore. We were tired of tracking down whether consent was given, when it was given in close to zero percent of cases anyway.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.