Acceptable practice in correspondence games

[Desmond]

My first ever game was against HD, so I am a real n00b at correspondance chess.

I want to know what is generally accepted as being "ok" to use as a tool in such a game.

(For the record HD and AC, I have only used my wooden board and my head in our games)

[ElevatorEscapee]

Hi Boris, remember the rules from when I was playing snail mail correspondence chess, it was ok to consult books, move the pieces around on the board, etc.

It wasn't ok to ask advice from a friend, or use a computer's playing function to help you analyse the position (a computer database was ok, as it was considered just an electronic form of a book).

Hope that is of help.

[Basil]

Huh? I moved pieces around on a board. I was under the impression that was the only permssable.

But that's the point of this thread, so I'll shut up now and learn!

[antichrist]

I was making the bed and swishing the sheets around and sent the pieces flying - took me two days to find them under everywhere so no move - sorry Boris

[Davidflude]

Australian Corrrespondence chess League specifically bans use of computers for
analysis.

IECG specifically bans them


ICCF rules are not as clear.

[Jesse Jager]

calculations for what?

[Desmond]

calculations for what?

For determining which move you will play.

[Jesse Jager]

most of the above options appear to be braking accepted chess rules. I must be missing something very obvious here

[Desmond]

most of the above options appear to be braking accepted chess rules. I must be missing something very obvious here

By "accepted chess rules" do you mean over-the-board rules or correspondance rules?

[antichrist]

By "accepted chess rules" do you mean over-the-board rules or correspondance rules?

He means the non-skid all-weather variety

[Kevin Bonham]

My view is that a player should have recourse to any previously published or derived information (this could include a computer database provided any accompanying analysis engine was switched off, or printed output of an analysis engine based on pre-game preparation) but should not seek any fresh advice on the position from any human or silicon source, unless the rules of the competition permit.

[Igor_Goldenberg]

The players should abide by the rules of the competition, which clearly prohibits usage of the computer program engine to analyse the position.

However, any law should be enforcable and make sence. Stupid laws are broken much more often. How on earth usage of computer engine can be monitored?

I also think that the team of strong player plus computer program will beat the team of weak player plus computer program (in correspondence chess).

[MichaelBaron]

Australian Corrrespondence chess League specifically bans use of computers for
analysis.

IECG specifically bans them


ICCF rules are not as clear.

It is well-known that all of the top correspondence players are using computers

[Sutek]

Australian Corrrespondence chess League specifically bans use of computers for
analysis.

IECG specifically bans them


ICCF rules are not as clear.

Hi David,

IECG and ICCF allow the use of programs and engines and have done for sometime.

If you look at their rules you will see that the paragraph that was once there which said something along the lines of "programs and engines are forbidden" has now been removed.

ICCF stated that it was impossible to police such a rule which made it unfair for the honest people.

[Sutek]

It is well-known that all of the top correspondence players are using computers

Hi Michael,

I can tell you from my own experience that a good CC player will beat any program/engine at CC.

Good example would be CC GM Nickel smashing Hydra in their recent 2 game corro match.

Games and notes can be found at
http://amici.iccf.com/issues/issue_0...kel_hydra.html

from what I've read on the net I believe that original agreement was to play a return match (regardless of the result) but the Hydra team has now ceased all communications with Nickel!