Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/04/12 at 03:39:42:


From the ICC help file "abuse":

Quote:


I've never played in any of the leagues on ICC, but I can certainly understand that they require stricter rules on the use of books than casual blitz games do. In the USCL there is probably a TD present at every playing location (?), but in the others it has to be trust-based presumably.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/04/12 at 03:39:42:


You've got to realize, for many people doing this ICC blitz is just a tool for improving their game, in this case openings. So they will accept a loss on time now and then and ignore the lost rating points. And those who are very attached to their blitz rating can get around this problem by having multiple accounts.

If I'm planning a blitz session with "book support" I will try to play most of the games with an increment, so I can still make a game of it if I run seriously short of time.

If someone plays in the 4545 league or 9030 league or USCL on ICC, they must abide by the rules of that league. 

All three of those leagues have specific rules against using books or databases.

I didn't realise it's not against ICC's rules to look up openings during blitz games.

I will continue to look up openings between blitz games, but not during the games.

I don't think it's a major problem in fast time controls anyway. I still can't imagine anyone +1900 in the 3-minute or 5-minute pools who would bother to look up their openings during the games. They'd get clobbered.

I haven't changed my opinion from last time we had this debate: Looking up openings during online blitz is a fun and effective way to learn/memorize openings for use in real OTB games (the only ones that really matter). This trumps most concerns about cheating in my opinion. I don't do it much myself these days, but that's down to laziness and playing blitz just for fun, not moral scruples. 

Ethically speaking this should be done on servers whose rules allow it. I play on the ICC, and sure enough, last time I checked the rules there said using books is allowed since a ban cannot be enforced!

Any "serious internet player" who can't accept this should at least make sure he plays on a server with different rules before complaining about this form of "cheating".

Markovich wrote on 05/03/12 at 01:40:39:


Taking moves from a book or database while playing rated chess is absolutely cheating in my opinion and apparently the opinions of many others in this thread.  As to what happened in my games, I have merely stated that I have suspicions.  I'm sorry you are personally distressed or find this obnoxious but I stand by the above.

I guess what help someone will use in Internet chess and how he will react on his opponent "cheating" depends on his/her attitude towards the internet game.

If you are a serious Internet player and you care about your rating and winning games, all devices your opponent uses are inacceptable.

If you see Internet chess as pure training games for your OTB games, some cheating may be helpful. Using engines is bullshit in any case. Using databases ist not much better. But what if you have worked on an elaborated, written opening repertoire? It should be very useful to make sure you play your favourite line by taking a look at them at the start of a game. You learn the lines and learn how to play the resulting position instead of playing a position you never wanted to.

Morally pretty doubtful, but surely useful. In the best possiple world you use your "book" in matches against engines, but I guess we don´t live in this world...

Unfortunately, both kind of players play on the same server.

Personally, my Internet rating is a striking proof I never did that. But it may be useful...

George Jempty wrote on 05/02/12 at 19:51:02:


In addition to the reasons already mentioned, I can see another plausible explanation for taking time for 7.Bc4: If your opponent has just started playing this line, he may have been uncertain about the move order. The first six moves are easy to remember, but on the seventh, White has many natural moves, and even if your opponent remembered he was going to play Bc4 at some point, he may have wondered if he was supposed to play e.g. 7.Be3 first.

Then, when he took a minute playing 11.Rc1, I can see at least two plausible reasons that don't involve cheating or distractions:

1) Your opponent vaguely remembers learning about 10...Qc7, but of course, he has focused mainly on 10...Bg4. Now his thoughts go something like this: "Against 10...Qc7, the right answer is 11.Rc1, isn't it? But wait a minute - what was I going to do after 11...Rd8? There was some tactical stuff here, and 11.Rc1 really doesn't make sense if I don't have a good reply to 11...Rd8. Oh, I think I remember now, this is the line I studied..." And when he is confident he remembers the right answer to 11...Rd8, he plays 11.Rc1, and then plays the next moves immediately. 

2) Your opponent has hardly studied 7.Bc4 at all, and is actually out of book when you didn't play 10...Bg4. However, he is a strong player, digs as deeply into the position as he can given his short time, and then plays 11.Rc1. He may not be 100 % confident he has found a good reply to 11...Rd8, but he has calculated a line which looks good for White. You make the replies he has expected, and since he has already spent a considerable amount of time, he uses the opportunity to play some quick moves that he has already planned in advance.

In fact, reason 1) is exactly what happened to me the first time I played the 7.Bc4 line - except it was a serious OTB game, so I took probably 10-15 minutes before playing 11.Rc1, and maybe a minute or two on each of the next moves.

George Jempty wrote on 05/02/12 at 23:29:30:


10...Qc7 is a major main line. The line with 10...Bg4 and 11...Na5 is quite out of favour for quite a long time if I remember the theory properly. That 10...Qc7 line with 11...Rd8 is a line that requires memory, similarly to most lines with 7. Bc4. There is also 10...Qc7 11. Rc1 b6. I think most players when trying to either choose which line to play or which move is the correct move will allot much time to decide which to play. 7. Bc4 players should also need to know how to play against 10...Na5 as well, which I think it would be reasonable for such players to pause during any of these lines to recall which move is the correct. I did a search on 365chess.com, and I have the most played move after 10. 0-0 as 10...Bg4 at (White won/Draw/Black won) 30,4%/40,2%/29,4%, and the second most played move as 10...Qc7 at 33,9%/35,3%/30,8%.

I think there is some computer-detecting team on ICC that determines if a player is cheating with a computer, but if you base your suspicions on the amount of time a player spends, especially earlier in the opening and not in a tactical position where there is a very difficult mate in 10, then there would be hundreds of games to suspect one is cheating. I also doubt that the ICC anti-cheating team would suspect a player of cheating if one sent them a message very frequently of one's games one plays, suspecting the opponent of cheating. For example, if you sent 100 games to the anti-cheating team for them to determine if they are cheating with the premise that you believe they are spending too much time at certain situations of the game, it might appear excessive. It appears unlikely that all of the opponents you suspect of cheating have cheated and somehow not been suspected by other opponents they have played. It would also seem unlikely if all of the players about whom you suspect were determined to not be cheating and the next player whom you suspect is cheating solely based on time allotment on certain moves.

As the post above also states, some players take time to decide which line to play. If I play the Najdorf and my opponent plays 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4, I might think for about 30 seconds whether to play 7...h6, 7...Nbd7, or 7...Be7, based on which line I think I should play in that particular game.