PDA

View Full Version : poll on correspondence chess



qpawn
03-11-2006, 12:08 PM
Here is a poll on cheating in correspondence chess.
Please be honest; if you think that CC is a waste of time becuase of Fritz then say so.

bergil
03-11-2006, 12:11 PM
Here is a poll on cheating in correspondence chess.
Please be honest; if you think that CC is a waste of time becuase of Fritz then say so.
Where is the poll?

Edit : Poll appeared after my post.

qpawn
03-11-2006, 12:13 PM
One fresh hot poll with barbecue sauce.
PIPING HOT.

:D

bergil
03-11-2006, 12:14 PM
One fresh hot poll with barbecue sauce.
PIPING HOT.

:DI Voted. ;)

qpawn
03-11-2006, 02:32 PM
:D

So where's my tip for delivering you that piping hot poll?

In the economy of rodent I survive purely on tips...:D

bergil
03-11-2006, 03:03 PM
:D

So where's my tip for delivering you that piping hot poll?

In the economy of rodent I survive purely on tips...:D
Be good to your mother and use deodorant. :D

ElevatorEscapee
03-11-2006, 03:28 PM
Bergil & qpawn, get a room!

Of course the idea of computer assistance puts me off Correspondence Chess, I find it totally abhorrent!

To me, the idea of player versus player is inherent to the game of chess.

Over the board, players are not allowed to access computers, or other sources during their games... to do so would be considered cheating!

So why should correspondence chess should be treated differently?

I think this stems from allowing Correspondence Chess Players to access openings manuals during their games... which was considered appropriate because it would be too difficult to enforce a law preventing players from doing so.

Is the hideous "computer assistance allowed" rule solely because "cheating" in such a manner is too difficult to prove?

If this is the case, then I think players should be trusted on their honour and honesty!

In my opinion, there should be no computer assistance allowed, whatsoever, unless the tournament entry conditiosn specifically instruct otherwise.

Seriously, why should I bother spending 50c per move to send letters to several chessplayers who may happen to be running Fritz, when I could buy Fritz myself, and play chess against it much more cheaply in the long run? :hmm:

jase
03-11-2006, 03:29 PM
Perhaps you could post a genuine poll, without the loading in the question and the options? Otherwise just state your opinion.

ElevatorEscapee
03-11-2006, 03:32 PM
Perhaps you could post a genuine poll, without the loading in the question and the options? Otherwise just state your opinion.

Well spotted Jase! The comment "Cheating with computers" is designed to extract a negative response! In fact, under the current international laws, using computers is not necessarly considered "cheating" at all!

My stance is that it should be. :D

qpawn
03-11-2006, 04:39 PM
I disagree; I think that the poll doesn't provoke a particular response.

Yes, computer use is permittted in ICCF games but not in some other international email chess sites [ IECG I believe].

ElevatorEscapee
03-11-2006, 05:04 PM
Why not reword the poll then cupee, and remove the word "cheating"? :P

The word "cheating" assumes a misuse of computers to "cheat" (ie do something against the rules), rather than a legal use of computers to assist analysis (which is currently not forbidden by the rules). :)

Garvinator
03-11-2006, 05:08 PM
do you still get to use a private bathroom and toilet, or will it be locked :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2006, 12:19 AM
I didn't vote because I disagree with all the options. I agree with jase that the poll is loaded. No matter how you vote some kind of negative view of computer use in CC is given.

I like the idea that there should be two forms of CC, each considered equally legitimate. One of these should measure the ability of humans using nothing but their mind (and permitted texts etc) playing the best games that they can. Another should measure the ability of humans to do the best that they can whatever the tools at their disposal. The aim in the latter case being an obvious one: the quest for chess perfection.

The search for perfect truth in a variation is an important enough goal to justify there being some tournaments in which people throw whatever they can get at it - computer help, GM advice, whatever.

MichaelBaron
06-11-2006, 11:34 AM
These days, correspondence chess is simply a variation of the so-called "advanced chess" where players can consult fritz, rybka etc betweenthe moves. I am almost certain that all of the top CC players are using computers extensively.:rolleyes:

Desmond
06-11-2006, 01:11 PM
A similar thread that people might want to check out:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4462

Ian Rout
08-11-2006, 08:33 AM
I didn't think that the poll was loaded, simply that it is about correpondence chess competitions in which computers are banned, in which case using them is cheating. There are other competitions where computers are permitted.

I used to play CC but haven't done for some years so I suppose for me the answer is not applicable. Cheating, or the possibility of it wouldn't put me off because I wouldn't be playing anyway.

I suspect if I had otherwise been intending to play then the possibility of cheating would be a negative. I'm not sure if the mere possibility would be enough to stop me playing; since pre-computer days there has always been the possibility that players could cheat by getting help from other players but that didn't seem to stop people playing.

However if I was reasonably certain that a significant number of players were using computers, rather than it just being a possibility, then that would put me off. I might as well play in computer-legal competitions.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 02:57 PM
I didn't think that the poll was loaded, simply that it is about correpondence chess competitions in which computers are banned, in which case using them is cheating. There are other competitions where computers are permitted.

Point taken - I assumed the poll was about general use of computers in CC and didn't realise that the use of "cheating" was meant to restrict the question to those events in which computers are clearly disallowed.

On this basis I scrub my previous comments and vote for "No, but it is still a concern." (Not that I currently have time to play in such competitions seriously either.)

Ian Rout
08-11-2006, 03:47 PM
That was just my interpretation and it may be wrong, but I don't think it makes sense any other way - it would be like "Does the prospect of players cheating by picking up the ball put you off playing Rugby League?"

A point to note in passing is that correspondence chess has never been a pure My Brain v Your Brain game. People were always allowed to use MCO, ECO, BCE, grandmaster analysis of openings in magazines etc. Also the time limits mean that people with lots of time can spend much longer on the game. Partly books were allowed because of the impracticality of prohibiting them, partly because, as somebody put it, CC isn't just a game of chess but a game of research. When computers came along, even before they were really a threat, it was recognised that as they became better anybody without one would be uncompetitive and hence computers (more precisely, engines) were banned in at least some organisations. If CC was invented today I suspect computers would be legal in the same way as books.