Sumerian: Does it really matter if you or someone else created the engine? When you sit there and let the engine do the job..all you have to do is click a button (i guess) while your opponent has to "wrinkle his brain" for each move.
Doesnt seem fair to me.

if the oponent actually knows this...
you keep saying the tourny runner knows..but thats diferent

Sumerian: As far as i know is Ed Trice the #1 rated in Gotic Chess. Do you (Smirf) win against him?

This is crazy. The man is honest and you condemn him. What is going to happen now when the next honest man thinks about stepping forward? All you are doing is pushing it into the closet because somehow that makes you more comfortable. I say wake up. And BTW I am used to being alone in my views. That doesn't change them.

Purple: Conclusion..as long as you tell the world that you cheat it is ok..right Purple?

Andersp: It seems to me that you have no idea how I am changing and improving the beta during a game, reacting on experiences. But that is indeed irrelevant. I would suggest to change your view on the opponent, see the engine instead of its operator / programmer, and notify its strictly limited use of persistant data. (It is a 48K engine only, no opening library, no table bases).

Andersp: LMAO@Anders

Sumerian: Correct..i have no clue how it works...but if you really want to test it why dont you invite Trice to a 5 win game instead of testing it in a prize tourney?

Andersp: No. It is BETTER than cheating and not telling. That concept is not rocket science.

Purple: Its ALWAYS good to be honest..and NEVER good to cheat :)

Andersp: Of course that goes without saying. The pressure coming from here however is quite another thing. The pressure is "don't tell." He is getting that message loud and clear. Once it was done I think "telling" was the noble thing to do.

I would love to play against Smirf in a Halma 8x8 prize tournament.
A couple of people I play against now are just like computers.

Andersp: If you would like to participate in tournaments without Smirf present, why did you not have entered in the European Chess960 Quick Motivation Tournament http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=7146&tri=29371&trnst=0 , where I offer to the winner a Chess960 book I have written myself?

Sumerian: LOL..Is my english so poor. You have missed my point completely.
So again...IF Fencer says OK to this engine i suppose he has to say OK to all "followers".
Think i said somewhere that i am no chessplayer so i havent signed up for the tourney you link to..but im sure there can be engines in other games too and i can tell you that IF i know that i play a computer then i would resign the game at once.

Andersp: Even one that plays Backgammon?

Walter Montego: I dont know...maybe i chould create one

Andersp: Maybe my understanding of English is poor, I am from Old Germany. Seeing you being that engaged discussing using an 8x8 and 10x8 chess engine, you did not gave that impression to me. And if you vice versa would be willing to think my arguments over, you will easyly come to the conclusion, that there will be a big difference in using self written engines or external know how.

Sumerian: Vielleicht sollen wir Deutch sprechen? kidding :) Dont misunderstand me please..i told you that you absolutely should test your engine..BUT,,isnt there a risk that BK soon is full of "engines" if Fencer allows one?

Andersp: I'd be willing to bet there's already some on the market now. Lots of programs play lots of games. Even this Windows© machine that I use came with a few games. Somewhere around here I have two game programs ChessMaster5500 and EA Bridge. That fact that I can't beat the ChessMaster5500 is one of the reason I don't play Chess on this site. Not much use in it is there? And it's an older version. I imagine their newest version is really strong and fast compared to the one I have. The Bridge playing program is disappointing because it plays so poorly! Apparently games that require deduction, bluff, and intuition are a lot harder to program than games that have perfect information in them as Chess does. I have read in magazines that current Bridge playing programs have greatly improved their play and features since the one that I own was released. As for Backgammon, I wouldn't bother making one on your own. It won't play all that much better than a decent player even it played the game perfectly. It'd take a long time to show that it played better than you do. You ought to take up Dark Chess. As far as I know there aren't any programs in use for making the moves, plus the game cannot be watched by an outsider until the game is over. And even if your opponent gave his password to a friend to help him make a move, his friend would only see your opponent's side of the board and he'd be in the same boat as your original opponent. The game has a little luck to it and a weaker player actually has a chance against a strong player which is never the case in regular Chess.

One thing this whole argument seems to have missed is the fact that none of us are directly playing a person. We're all using machines to play the games with. Just wait until the programs can make conversation too. :(

Andersp: It already is.

Andersp: Er, ah, I thought it was full of engines, machines, and programs now? No?

Purple and Walter: ..little i know about

Andersp:

sLaMdAnCe: another honest person

Stevie:

There are "learning" programs that analyze completed games and pin point mistakes after the game is over. How do people feel about that? Is that also cheating?

Purple: Is there an engine to make "smileys" so Slam could increase his word supply?

Andersp: lol
i pLAy 2 gAMEz hERe.
BG & hYpEr.
Go LoOk aNd sEe My tRiCe LiKe ReCoRd.

Andersp: wOw.
aNtJe iZ So nICe.
hMMmm..gO fiGuRe.

Andersp: LOL. I'm not saying you are wrong at all but I'm suggesting you save some of the outrage for people who are programming and keeping quiet about it.

sLaMdAnCe: You have noooooo idea how nice Antje is
Purple Im not saying im right..just curious about Fencer's opinion

Andersp: MiGht i SuGgESt iNsTeAd oF tRyiNg tO bAIt Me, tRy To bEAt Me.

Purple: What's it matter if the game is over? A little late to get help, ain't it? It certainly isn't cheating by any definition of the word that I know of. It's the same as looking over a game you've already played. One of the things that the Chess playing machine do is used old games and data bases to look up and compare a position in the case that it's been played before. That to me is cheating, but that is allowed in tournaments where programs are permitted to play. This is one thing that makes Sumerian's type of program different from a lot of others is that it plays on the fly and just wings its moves. It's still a machine, but it is a different approach to programming.

sLaMdAnCe: thats beat you in what?

Andersp: you and i used to play alot..then for some reason you decided you didnt like me anymore, we never had a prob to my knowledge.
But you've declined evey invite i've sent you in the last 6 months.
Why?

,,but the anser is that i have declined every invite not only from you..nothing personal..until now when you said to my intelligent posts
..kidding...have to find "Dancing Queen" for my daughter now...take care

is it cheating to look in previous games of yourself and use that knowledge in your current game ?

is it cheating to use a table of chances of 2 dice (as i know some people in backgammon, although you can easily do that in your mind as well)

would it be cheating to have a chessboard next to your computer, setup the game you are playing, and test-play several moves ahead ?

is it cheating to use notes ?

all this can be considered using outside 'programs'

Looks like the paragraph needs to be better defined.

Hrqls: Good point. I think everyone agrees on defining it as using an outside PC (or Mac :-) program, created by someone else, for the purpose of gaining advantage in one particular game (which does not include "gaining advantage" by playing against the program & thus improving your general chess skills).
This way is correct, I believe, and Sumerian is thus out of the category (which is correct too, I believe).

Pafl: *nod*

Stevie: i think that it also would of been better ot know he was playing with a computer, i didnt read his profile and therefore didnt know

Sumerian was in my group.

if summarian wasnt in your group then someone else with a bkr almost as high would be in his place (thats the way the players in the tournament are sorted)

yes, but then they may not have been aided with a program,i'm nto exceptionally bothered as im not great at chess and would probably have lost anyway, it just would have been nice to know.

i agree i would have wanted to know as well and i wouldnt have read his profile either

sLaMdAnCe: I'm sure he and a lot of others use progs to "playtest" their ideas.

Sumerian: I have no suggestion, since it is unfair to single you out. Besides, even if you say you are using a program, no one can prove it so I think any talk of violating the user agreement is spurious and I support you in this regard. If you need a low 2100 ELO rated chess player to help you play test, I will do so gladly.

Fencer: or deleted. There is no sense in having a rule that cannot be enforced.

redsales: What is easy to prove is that I have written a program by myself. It would not make a lot of sense if someone will use a bought one, but you have no webcams on both sides to control what the opponents really are doing. Therefore it would make sense to encourage players to speak frankly on their way to produce good moves. If they would not be honest with that, they would mainly betray themself.

If you are interested in seriously testing, please send me a message with your ideas on that.

redsales: I would not delete it - you would be surprised about how many would then use outside programs just because "it's not against the rules".

BIG BAD WOLF: I don't think so.