Markovich wrote on 05/05/12 at 01:28:46:


There is no moralizing going on.  Here is the definition of cheat from one online dictionary:

"Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination".

If you agree to ICC's terms of service regarding not using computer assistance, and then you do so anyway, you've acted dis-honestly.  Period.

You may think the statement is self-contradictory. But quite a few players have been given bans for cheating in the leagues I play in. No, I don't have specific numbers, but enough players get banned to deter others from cheating.

The rules are enforceable, and they are enforced.

Yes, Markovich, I stand by my statement. I didn't say the rules are perfectly enforceable. But they are enforceable. And yes, I stand by my use of "very" in this case.

Stigma wrote on 05/04/12 at 23:52:54:



I thought I clearly stated that I was talking about leagues where such actions are prohibited. I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier.

I hope I am this time.

I disagree completely with Markovich's comments regarding real-time chess.

It's usually very easy to determine if someone is using an engine in real-time chess. It's not so clear-cut in correspondence chess, which is why most correspondence sites don't even bother to declare engine use illegal.

Judging from the comments here, there are apparently some people who use books and other resources even for real-time online chess. Their argument that relying on books while the clock is ticking somehow prepares them to play OTB chess makes no sense to me.

I play in several online leagues where the rules are quite clear regarding real-time chess. The rules are VERY enforceable. But of course, there are some cheaters (that is, people who knowingly break the rules) who manage to get away with it because they are careful. 

This isn't like speeding. It's like shoplifting. Some shoplifters get caught, some don't. The fact that some shoplifters get away with stealing doesn't make their activity right, or prohibitions against shoplifting unenforceable.

Markovich wrote on 05/04/12 at 13:51:41:


The rules are not un-enforcable.  I got banned from tourneys on ICC for a few days because their software could detect that I was using Fritz at the same time as I was playing.  I had loaded up the previous game I'd played to have a look.  Their software was then able to determine that I was *not* looking at the game I was currently playing, and I was re-instated.  If their software can do that, it should also be able to check if you are checking the line you are currently playing in Chessbase.

So to avoid this, you'd have to be running chessbase on another machine.  To take your speeding analogy then, it's not just competing against speeders, but speeders with radar detectors.  This is a much better analogy than your completely unrealistic attempt at employing reductio ad absurdum.

Here's the deal -- I could care less.  I was just wondering what the perception, and possibly the reality, was.  Despite a lot of commenters putting me into a lose-lose situation: my suspicions specific to a couple of games of mine weren't sufficiently well-founded, or on the other hand, everybody's doing it, so get over it.

For myself personally though, I know that I will remember how to avoid poor opening moves if I lose the game, then look them up afterward, as opposed to avoiding them in real time by cheating -- there, I said it: CHEATING.  I'm not just practicing my openings, I'm practicing in general, and it's a well-established principle that the way to get better is to lose a lot.

Let us say that I build a CC server and offer it to players on condition that they may only play if, while contemplating their moves, they stand on one foot and play "The Star Spangled Banner" on a kazoo.

I venture to guess that this condition would be ignored by a great many people.  And I further guess that some people would make their moves while standing on one foot and playing "The Star Spangled Banner" on a kazoo, and continually fret that their opponents were "cheating" by not doing so.  And every so often arguments would break out in various chess forums concerning whether this was indeed cheating.

It calls into question the utility of setting forth rules that are both unenforceable and very likely to be broken.  It does, of course, satisfy a certain primness in some people, the same sort, no doubt, who never break the speed limit on the highway.