RE:Using Chess Engines

[herlocksholmes]

We are dealing with correspondence chess, right ??

If so, what is the difference between correspondence chess and so called "over the board games"??

In a otb game, would a player be allowed to consult any form of assistance ? - No.

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to consult Nunn's NCO or the MCO or any other openingsbook, or any other chess literature for that matter? - Yes

In correspondence chess would a player be allowed to pack out his board and pieces and actually analyse the position prior to deciding on his move? - Yes

In correspondence chess would a player be allowed to consult a database of games ie Chessbase, to compare his current board position with similar positions in games in the database, and to see what moves the players in these games made in that position, before deciding on his move? - Yes

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to test the soundness of his candidate move or moves, by analysing same with a chess engine - Yes

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to discuss the current position with his friend or chessclub member, so as to seek opinion on the soundness of the player's candidate move - Yes

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to offer no personal input, personal analysis and personal research, but merely allow a chess engine to make all the moves, without such personal input and research at all ? - NO !!!

We are living in a modern society. Some have more means available to them (from a chess research point of view) than others. Some are naturally more talented chessplayers than others. This is similar to all aspects of life.

Long live correspondence chess !!

[gmiller]

I accidently split this message off into another thread, it was posted in reply to "Using chess engines".

[jstripes]

We are dealing with correspondence chess, right ??
[snip]
In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to test the soundness of his candidate move or moves, by analysing same with a chess engine - Yes

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to discuss the current position with his friend or chessclub member, so as to seek opinion on the soundness of the player's candidate move - Yes

In correspondence chess, would a player be allowed to offer no personal input, personal analysis and personal research, but merely allow a chess engine to make all the moves, without such personal input and research at all ? - NO !!!
[snip]
Long live correspondence chess !!

I thank you, herlocksholmes, for your long and detailed post. As I see it, one of the difficulties with this site stems from the absence of clearly stated rules and standards on these matters. SlowChess simply does not have its own statement. If we could engage in a vigorous discussion and debate upon the specifics here, perhaps we could present Greg with something that he could incorporate into the SlowChess rules.

I agree with all that I snipped out, but must register my disagreement with two remaining points.

Although the use of engines for blunder checking is acceptable in certain correspondence chess events, the practice is by no means universally accepted. Both IECC and USCF, for example, specifically prohibit the practice. IECC recently clarified its rule on computer use to render more explicit that databases are acceptable, while engines are not.

As for consulting friends and family, I am unaware of any correspondence chess organizing bodies that permits this practice. However, it is not only impossible to enforce such rules (unless all one's friends are whistle-blowing saints), but also easily violated without the intention to do so. Consider as a case in point a game I'm currently playing on another site. The game has reached a point of tremendous tactical complexity. I have the position set up on a board on a table in a common area in my house, where I can look at variations periodically. Everyone in the household plays chess. My partner or one of the children could easily examine the board and offer an opinion. Of course, I would not listen, but I cannot always regulate my unconscious.

As for the unacceptability of using engines without input from the human whose rating is on the line, I agree with you. I would add my echo to others who have expressed the opinion that serious players would not engage in this practice because the satisfaction in chess stems from the mental effort, not its avoidance. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised to learn that some programmers might attempt to test their chess engines by engaging them in correspondence play. If so, I would urge them not to do so covertly, as many strong correspondence players are quite confident that they can whip all the computers out there. Tell us you want to test your engine, and players will line up to humble the beast.