Use of engines in matchs

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
maxsource
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:17 am

Use of engines in matchs

Post by maxsource » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:31 am

Is allowed the use of engines in matchs? And about databases?

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

Fritz and other silicon buddies are forbidden

Post by slowblunder » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:04 am

I asked this question in the following thread

http://www.net-chess.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1003

and gmiller´s answer was clear: Not allowed according to the USCF rules!

Databases look okay for me, because they are closer to printed material (allowed) than to chess machines.

Another question: what about Nalimov databases?
(explanation: these are databases for endgames with up to six pieces - including Kings. You can look up "your" position and it tells you if it is won, drawn or lost.)

herlocksholmes
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 8:53 am

Post by herlocksholmes » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:09 pm

Dear maxsource,

You unfortunately placed your head into a hornets nest!

There are 2 main followings as far as i could ascertain. The first are those people who wish not to play over the board classic chess, but prefer to play correspondence chess with otb rules (that would NOT include the use of chessengines)

On the other hand you have the people who know that they are playing CORRESPONDENCE chess and that in the International sphere of correspondence chess the use of chess engines are allowed and are in fact encouraged. It is common knowledge that Ivar Behrn from Norway (A very recent World Correpondence Chess Champion uses Fritz for that purpose.)

In the middle sits our great site administrator "Greg Miller" - whom we all love dearly - that prefers the USCF rules that forbid the use of chess engines.

So it is up to you how you wish to play.

My experience has been that all the srong players at this site (2600+)use engine assistance in their games. Those games are of a very high standard and one can certainly learn a great deal from them.I prefer to play these opponents as they are nice folks and in genral refrain from participating in attacks launched against them by the so called "purists" (people against the use of engines). It is just I, who ever so often toss my toys in this regard.

As far as I am concerned, and in this regard i refer to my previous posts on the topic: It is not illegal to use chessengines in correspondence play, it is an accepted practise in the International Correspondence Chess Fraternity, Grandmasters use it, Correspondence Chess World Champions use it.

Just enjoy your chess and play as well as you can !!

Best Regards
Herlocksholmes

imreallylousy
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:10 pm

Post by imreallylousy » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:10 pm

Herlocksholmes: You mean "enjoy your chess and play as well as your chess engine can"....:):)

petemarkou
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:50 pm

chess engines

Post by petemarkou » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:21 am

Where can I find one of these Chess Engines :D

herlocksholmes
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 8:53 am

Post by herlocksholmes » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:42 pm

Hello pete and lousy,

Common chessengines are , Fritz, Shredder, Junior etc. You can purchase same at chessbase.com.

Lousy, you are wrong, I mean exactly what i said.... :D

Best regards,
Herlocksholmes

imreallylousy
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:10 pm

Post by imreallylousy » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:23 pm

I guess I'm just an old fuddy duddy, but I think one's chess skills should be based on one's chess skills, not on someone else's. I'm all for study off the board, but once on it, let 'er rip. I have no problem with using books. You still have to analyze and think. It's when a machine thinks for you, that's where I depart. Chess engines are great teaching tools, but when used during a competition, it's like playing two opponents, one usually much better than the other! I agree with the USCF rules. I would also like to add, when one is truly a 2000+ player, a chess engine probably isn't going to influence the players too much. It's those of us who play at the lower levels who would tend to let the machine do the thinking for us. That's not chess, that's something else. I'm not in favor of eliminating the human element in this wonderful game. Chess engines tend to do that.

kcollins
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:44 pm

to play or not to play.....

Post by kcollins » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:12 pm

well said lousy, think you are absolutely right - why play when all you want to do is use machines:::? surely the game is between two intellects, one would surely hope - life is never like this however, cheats and liers abound.... let chess be a peaceful and fun game for all - not machines.... :!: :!: 8)

herlocksholmes
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 8:53 am

Post by herlocksholmes » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Dear lousy,

You are obviously correct in your view that the engine should not be allowed to play the game on behalf of the human. That is not what i suggest. My views on the topic is a matter of public record.

The human element is the most important of all. I use my engine as an analysis tool and I certainly do not follow each and every move suggested by the engine.

I guess there will always be a difference of opinion on the subject and you certainly make a valid and good point.

Best regards
Herlocksholmes

imreallylousy
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:10 pm

Post by imreallylousy » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:54 pm

Thanks, Herlock. I'm sure there will always be a difference of opinion. It's what makes life interesting.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Post by cornstalk » Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:17 am

herlocksholmes wrote:Dear maxsource,

You unfortunately placed your head into a hornets nest!

There are 2 main followings as far as i could ascertain. The first are those people who wish not to play over the board classic chess, but prefer to play correspondence chess with otb rules (that would NOT include the use of chessengines)

On the other hand you have the people who know that they are playing CORRESPONDENCE chess and that in the International sphere of correspondence chess the use of chess engines are allowed and are in fact encouraged. It is common knowledge that Ivar Behrn from Norway (A very recent World Correpondence Chess Champion uses Fritz for that purpose.)

In the middle sits our great site administrator "Greg Miller" - whom we all love dearly - that prefers the USCF rules that forbid the use of chess engines.

So it is up to you how you wish to play.

My experience has been that all the srong players at this site (2600+)use engine assistance in their games. Those games are of a very high standard and one can certainly learn a great deal from them.I prefer to play these opponents as they are nice folks and in genral refrain from participating in attacks launched against them by the so called "purists" (people against the use of engines). It is just I, who ever so often toss my toys in this regard.

As far as I am concerned, and in this regard i refer to my previous posts on the topic: It is not illegal to use chessengines in correspondence play, it is an accepted practise in the International Correspondence Chess Fraternity, Grandmasters use it, Correspondence Chess World Champions use it.

Just enjoy your chess and play as well as you can !!

Best Regards
Herlocksholmes
Sensible words. When I was studying for my USCF Local TD test, I noticed that the Rulebook freely allows all sorts of consultation in adjourned games, including consultation with stronger players and with computers. The rationale is that there is no way to prevent this, and there is no point in making a rule that can't be enforced.

There was even a question on the test about this: a player complains that his opponent consulted, during adjournment, with a much stronger player. There are witnesses that bear this out. What do you do? Correct answer: reject the complaint; nothing is wrong.

It seems very strange to me, then, that USCF takes a very different attitude concerning consultation and the use of computers in correspondence chess (CC). One would think that for consistency's sake, this would be permitted as much as consultation during adjournments. Certainly, it is even more difficult to enforce a rule against it. But no, for some reason, it's labelled cheating!

I believe that the ICCF rule, which is permissive and which is defended on the same ground that USCF defends its rule permitting consultation during adjournments, is much more reasonable.

I have a USCF Senior Master's title in CC (just plan Master OTB). I've played in a lot of high-level CC games, and I think it's a safe bet that most strong players are using computers. Almost never do you find people falling for tactical tricks, which would sometimes happen in the days before silicon assistance. The same goes for most 2600+ games being played on this site. (The ratings are inflated here: 2600+ here corresponds to 2300+ in ICCF or USCF terms.)

Further with regard to net-chess, I notice that many of the stronger players carry very high game loads. I can tell you, with a lot of experience to back it up, that the unassisted brain of a strong player is good enough to take on strong opponents in several games of CC chess at once, but not good enough to take on strong opponents 20, 30 or 40 games at once! It just takes too much time to do all that analysis. So unless you're in prison or something, it's very hard to play well in more than 10 or so CC games unassisted by silicon. Looking at the game loads of many high-rated plaers here, it's a very safe bet, in my view, that quite a few of them play with computer assistance. (There are a few exceptional players who can play many games to a high standard using only their own brains, so be careful before you draw conclusions about any specific player!)

By the same token, only very rarely have I encountered play that was only that of a machine. Almost always there is evidence that a real person is behind the moves. I doubt very much that many players simply let the computer make the decisions. What would be the fun of that? And if they do, so what? The real cost is theirs. At any rate, since it appears that there is some level upon which I am playing a human opponent, I am happy to play CC even though it appears to have become an exercise in finding the best moves with computer assistance.

Post Reply