Acceptable practice in correspondence games

[Ian Rout]

My preferred rule:
Only moving pieces around on a board is permitted

My rationale is
• this practice retains the game to the player (self)
• access to other materials and databases is using other people's ideas
• access to other materials and databases is seldom likely to be exactly equal for both players
• this is chess, not research!

This last point, that CC is not research, is interesting because many many years ago a senior CC figure (don't remember who) wrote just the opposite in the CCLA newsletter. He expressed the view that the essential feature of CC is that it is about research, rather than just a different way of playing the same game.

As I recall part of his argument, apart from the obvious point that it gives the opportunity to examine positions more deeply, was that it can never be an equal contest because some people have (or are prepared to use) so much more time than others, so it is only worth playing when viewed as more than just another game of chess.

People have many reasons for playing CC and many permutations of rules are valid (so long as there is compliance) but I think it is true that part of the attraction for at least some players is to delve more deeply which includes using sources to play endings accurately and play openings according to and to test current theory.

[Garvinator]

I think also for acceptable practice, or for what is part of the rules, is what can actually be reasonably enforced.

[Kevin Bonham]

I think also for acceptable practice, or for what is part of the rules, is what can actually be reasonably enforced.

Yes, which makes rules of the you-can-use-Fritz-in-database-mode-but-you-can't-switch-the-engine-on type a bit silly. People may be too easily tempted.

• access to other materials and databases is using other people's ideas

But this happens all the time anyway. Players who learn openings at pretty much any stage of their learning about the game (instead of playing entirely their own openings made up from scratch) are using other people's ideas. Players who swot up on theory to prepare for an OTB game are using other people's ideas. The difference between CC and OTB in this regard is that in OTB, it matters whether you can remember what you read.

I'm making this thread a sticky thread as it is; should something near a consensus on a set of default rules for non-tournament games here emerge I will post them as an announcement.

[Basil]

Players who learn openings at pretty much any stage of their learning about the game (instead of playing entirely their own openings made up from scratch) are using other people's ideas.

That's right.

Players who swot up on theory to prepare for an OTB game are using other people's ideas.

That's right.

The difference between CC and OTB in this regard is that in OTB, it matters whether you can remember what you read.

That's right.

I'm fine with all of that just like swotting up before an exam. I object to to referring to the answers during the exam.

[Kevin Bonham]

I'm fine with all of that just like swotting up before an exam. I object to to referring to the answers during the exam.

It's more like the difference between closed-book and open-book exams than like the difference between closed-book exams and looking up the answer.

Even freestyle isn't looking up the answer. You can ask your computer for the answer and it still doesn't know. It will just have a much better idea of which answers are tactically wrong.

[Basil]

Even freestyle isn't looking up the answer.

Yes but it is a very good guide and a blunder check.

I understand the point you are making. That style of play doesn't work for me. That's not the essence of corro in my book [/pun].

[Rincewind]

I'm fine with all of that just like swotting up before an exam. I object to to referring to the answers during the exam.

The other problem is that this is not really practical in CC where game make take several weeks to complete (postal games used to take an average of around 18 months). During that time you would have to actively avoid books which dealt with the lines you happen to be playing in your many CC games. Also book endgame study would be difficult as you would have to avoid studying end games which may have a bearing on the games you currently have in progress.

I think a ban or research makes CC too much of an inconvenience to participate in. You require players to only read books which deal with general middle games ideas or openings that they don't play in CC.

[Rincewind]

Just a quick point why has using a computer database of games and using a chess engine not been differentiated?

I think that is an important distinction as indicated by a message of Kevin's (#33).

[Desmond]

Just a quick point why has using a computer database of games and using a chess engine not been differentiated?

I think that is an important distinction as indicated by a message of Kevin's (#33).

I think I did differentiate them; when I said engine, I was referring to the latter. Database would be analagous to book or website.

[Basil]

During that time you would have to actively avoid books which dealt with the lines you happen to be playing in your many CC games.

Yes. No problem with that in my ... eeerm book

I think a ban or research makes CC too much of an inconvenience to participate in. You require players to only read books which deal with general middle games ideas or openings that they don't play in CC.

Ditto. I should clarify that I'm not arguing for 'my style' to get up - my care factor is not great. I am saying that:

1. Where what you and Kev et al are advocating exists, I have no interest in that variant at all.
2. This correspondence variant is weighted in favour of assistance to such a degree that the essence of chess and individuality is lost. Hell, might as well go the whole hog and plug in Rybka.
3. That some issues of enforcement and practicality exist are not sufficient rationale for me to include them in a code of acceptable practice.

All of a sudden corro has become a dirty word ... eugggghhhh

[Rincewind]

I think I did differentiate them; when I said engine, I was referring to the latter. Database would be analagous to book or website.

In that case I'll reword my question?

Just a quick point why has using a computer database of games and using a chess book of games/openings not been differentiated?

I take the point that they are analogous but only to a point. As Kevin points out, when using a database that also has engine capability, there may be a lower barrier to employing the engine either licitly or illicitly. In Kevin's words...

... which makes rules of the you-can-use-Fritz-in-database-mode-but-you-can't-switch-the-engine-on type a bit silly. People may be too easily tempted.

Personally I feel that if books are allowed then so should computer databases but some people may decide to vote against them from a pragmatic point of view.

There is also considerable grey area with endgame tablebases. Generally these are electronically computed and then stored. Yes they are considered a part of the body of current chess theory. But what is the difference between using a move that a computer calculated yesterday and using a move that a computer calculated today?

[Desmond]

Just a quick point why has using a computer database of games and using a chess book of games/openings not been differentiated?

Because I created the poll, and to me they are analagous, so I did not see any need to differentiate them.

[Davidflude]

The situation with high level over the board chess is that many very strong over the board players are using computers to find theoretical innovations to spring on their opponents.

I was working on the King's Gambit some time ago and found a major improvement for black. I had entered all the moves on my database. Subsequently in a fied openings tournament three players followed analysis by Gallagher and walked straight into the line.

I did not need to use my analysis engine. However it would have looked to my opponent that I was using an engine.

However I am very suspect of engines. I am playing one game where the position just does not clarify after a sacrifice. I had a choice of totally unbalanced endgames where I would not trust computer evaluations one bit. When the game is finished I will let players look at it.

Suppose you let the computer program analyze a position and it says after say 30 half moves deep that one player has an advantage then how do you know whether to trust the final evaluation.

[Garvinator]

Suppose you let the computer program analyze a position and it says after say 30 half moves deep that one player has an advantage then how do you know whether to trust the final evaluation.

And this is where the skill of a decent freestyle player comes in, when to trust the judgement of the engine, or to keep looking for more, believing that the engine is missing something, or even further, that you know more than the engine does in a given position no matter what eval the engine is screaming at you.

[Kevin Bonham]

We (the mods) are currently discussing what if anything to do about the problem of move editing.

Suffice to say that it is not a good idea to edit any post containing your reply to a move made by your opponent (whether your post in reply contains your next move or not). Even if the edit is innocent (or the original move was a typo, for example) this may give rise to suspicion of cheating that you will be unable to disprove. Better to make a second post and ask the moderators to merge the posts if necessary.

Once a legal move is submitted by pressing send, that is your move and it cannot be altered, not even if you unintentionally typed a move that is not the one you meant to play.

I will support any tournament director who rules the game to be lost by any player who edits a post containing a reply to a move.

If there is any suggestion that posts are edited within the edit window in this manner it may be necessary to use the board software to ban all non-mod edits in this section.