Fwiffo: I play go9x9 on another site - itsyourturn.com. Look me up and we can play.

<ouspensky> Thank you for your reply, I was curious about it. I myself am not a good chess player and can't "feel" the machine in chess so to speak (whereas in Go I can, but there the programs aren't so strong).

Fwiffo: If somebody just turns on a chess program, it's easy to tell. For example, when a program comes to the end of its data base (human moves) it rearranges its position (switching to computer moves).
Also, it attacks in waves and makes anti-positional moves, though good ones from its perspective.
Most common is for a player to check a human selected move for tactical flaws.
An argument in favor of this is that it teaches strategy and eliminates ruining a good game through blunders.
However, it also eliminates the suspense that is part of the enjoyment of the game. So it's a choice between instruction and enjoyment.
I don't see how this is "cheating" but, in any event, those concerned about it, almost always seem to be poor players and probably would be better off concerning themselves less with witch-hunting and more with improving their skills.

Is it possible to distinguish good chessprograms from good human chessplayers by style comparison?

jfa: unfortunately you are correct. I expect to occassionally come across a cheater but as of yet I have never accussed anyone. I don't make such allogations, what would be the point?

The chance of unwittingly playing a game on-line against an opponent who is using a chess engine goes with the territory...

pawnme: Of course not, there is no magic in programming (well, "Technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it.") - so even if a program does not prexist it is not difficult to write one. Write a good one? Another matter!

Writing a good program to play any skilled game is skilled in itself, though, so I think is no where near as bad as using someone elses tool to play games without informing people.

Well you have misunderstood me.....I'm not hostile and i don't say all these to accuse you or insult you or whatever. I just saw something written that is wrong and i want to correct it. Just that!

I don't post to insult people or anything like that, i just when i see something inaccurate or wrong, try to correct it. You insisted that i was wrong but i wasn't.....No offence against you but just i can't stand seeing wrong things written.

2 of your statements contradict to each other. I've said that.......That's all.

Why are you so hostile over this matter, Pythagoras? O_o

pawnme: The only chess variant free of engines is Dark chess. All others can be played with Zillions of Games and other engines.

ColonelCrockett: "and as far as I know there is no jungle engine, if there is one someone please correct me"

Zillions of Games is the answer! Zillions does it again! It's the King of the Kings. It lets you play every variant you can ever imagine.........! The AI is terrible at Jungle (so far it hasn't managed to beat or draw me even once) but it's veru fun.......

If you want to play go here and download Jungle.zip: Click me!
The above file for Zillions of Games hasn't been created by me, i just modified the graphics to be like Brainking's and even a bit more spectacular......!


SOCRATES:

-You say in your profile that you use resources for the openings.........
-That implies that you should accept others using resources for the openings.......
-That implies that you should not care if these people(that are using resources for the openings) know the openings names---Conclusion-1

You've said: "I've studied hard to memorize openings and their published play along with the names and it makes me sick that someone can know 15 published moves to benkos without one inch of study."---Statement-1


Conclusion-1 and Statement-1, both derived from your statements lead to a contradiction......

chessmec: Thanks for the link. I had no idea it was there. Can't remember now if I read it when first registering here on BK.
The guidelines could be more verbose about cheating though. If it is ok to use books and openings databases but not engines, then it should say so explicitly.

Is anything safe to play out there?

pawnme: http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv/ is able to play Berolina or cylinder chess

Or if you want to stay closer to home, try Berolina or cylinder chess. To my knowledge there is no computer programs for those games either.

pawnme: I would agree except I would exclude extinction, anti, and knight relay. I don't think these variants have anything to do with chess skill. I however think that performance at other games of skill (like Jungle) can be a good indicator of critical thinking skills (and as far as I know there is no jungle engine, if there is one someone please correct me).

Beren the 32nd: Yes I think BK should give everyone guidelines. It is obvious no one wants to play against a chess engine without notice.

Beren the 32nd: Have a look at the User Agreement (Link is in the bottom)

I did not accuse anyone of using resources to find opening moves.

I clearly accused people of using CCOMPUTER CHESS PROGRAMS.

If people did research the openings in a book or another resource, don't you think they would know the opening name after playing it 15 moves deep?

You misunderstood everything Pythagoras.

I believe this issue has come up a number of times on various DBs. It concerns me that there are no published guidelines on BK; well, I've had a long look before without finding any.
Anyone new to the site is not going to be aware of the results of previous discussions.
If it is true that using Engines is allowed as long as players state that that is what they are doing, and if some people have even developed their own, then there could actually be some interesting engine-only tournaments here.
Would anyone else appreciate some official guidelines?

It was clear that I was accusing players of using computer assistance, nothing else. I'm sorry if you don't understand.

I'm not against using books and online databases for studying openings OF COURSE!

I just find VERY ODD that Socrates "accuses" people of using programs or databases for playing the openings while he states that he use them too(online internet databases/books or whatever he means with resources).......

Pythagoras: What is the problem about using non-electronical help? Are you against it? I am using opening books and endgame books, but never a program for assistance. What is the problem?

S O C R A T E S: From your profile: I use resources for openings in all games but do not use software to play my games.


Now: I've studied hard to memorize openings and their published play along with the names and it makes me sick that someone can know 15 published moves to benkos without one inch of study.

Contradict each other.........Don't you think?

Actually the contradiction is that you "accuse" people of using programs or databases for playing the openings while you state clearly that you use them too(online internet databases/books or whatever you mean with resources).......

I just find it odd that a player can go 10-15 moves deep into published play and not know the name of the line when I ask them. I've studied hard to memorize openings and their published play along with the names and it makes me sick that someone can know 15 published moves to benkos without one inch of study. I know that with this style of online gaming that the top 1-3 players are legit masters that can beat a program within the time limit given.

pawnme: That is sort of my sentiment too ... I mainly play variants, not to find out how good people are (compared to standard chess), but because it is less likely that they will have a lot of extra assistance be that computers, books or having already played a lot games.

Play them at the variants that do not support computer assistance and you will quickly find out if they are skilled or if they are dependant on their computer.

I did not mean ALL of them but some :) I won't say names.

Stormerne: I was simply pointing out that he made no unfounded accussations, he simply pointed out that some top players are using computer assistance (which would be the point of such cheating, to get a high rating). It has nothing to do with cultural difference, in fact I have been accused on other sites of cheating but my brainking rating and my over-the-board rating proves otherwise.

ColonelCrockett: No he didn't, but that's not the point. Perhaps in your culture it is acceptable to make unsubstantiated accusations, but in mine it is not. We are a multicultural community here and in my opinion we need to act accordingly if we want to get on.

WhisperzQ: I always kinda thought if I ever played against someone using a program I'd just try to beat it. (and I hope one day I will, but that seems unrealistic)

S O C R A T E S: I am aware that there are a few who have, in the past, admitted to using Chess programs but I cannot remember who they are nor do I have an inclination to go back through fellowships to work it out.

The result of the discussion was, however, that there was no prohibition on people using programs but it would be correct ettiquette (sp?) for this to be stated upfront, as say does "SMIRF Engine" when he uses it for playing Gothic Chess.

The great difficulty is proving someone is using a program. There are some who believe that they can work it out depending upon the moves which are made ... a level of chess intuition which is far beyond me.

As for further discussion, this is not a taboo topic but please do make unfounded accusations (they will be hidden or deleted). Personally, I wonder what the real difference is between using say a book of openings which is a compilation of moves in a database which is textual (considered by most to be okay) and using a computer program with the same information but with a much faster search engine ... a computer instead of one's brain ... which is considered not okay. Fruit for the sideboard so to speak (in strine).

Stormerne: why get so bent out of shape? He didn't accuse you did he?

Stormerne: I do not want to mention names here, but some people told here at bk that using programs for assistance cannot be prohibited and they therefore using it ... but let us say it clear: These people are a small minority here.

chessmec: Why "Of course"? Please tell us how you are so sure. In fairness, if SOCRATES has evidence that some players are cheating then he should show us the evidence. I'm sure the rest of us will all want to know. If, however, he does not have any evidence then, again in fairness, he should withdraw his accusation. By the way, your opinion does not count as evidence!

S O C R A T E S: Of course SOME players are using assistance, but in my opinion the minority.

S O C R A T E S: What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

It is hard to play brainking chess because of all the higher rated players using program for assistance.

AbigailII: Also, if no pawn has moved and no piece has been captured for 50 moves, the player whose move it is may claim a draw.
Also if no Pawn is about to move and no piece to be captured for the last 50 consecutive moves with the move currently to be played that gives the aforementioned result, then the player to move may claim a draw......

AbigailII: Yes! thanks I will see what happens, wondered if it was automatic, it is not as you descrbe

wellywales: In the official chess rules, no. However, the official chess rules say that if a position is repeated, or to be repeated, three times (including same player to move, castling and en passant rights), the player whose move it is may claim a draw. Also, if no pawn has moved and no piece has been captured for 50 moves, the player whose move it is may claim a draw.
<p>
I don't think Brainking actually tests these conditions - if not, and one of the above situation arises, and your oponent doesn't accept a draw, you might want to mail Fencer, and he may decide the game is a draw.

Is there a limit on how many times you can make the same move

I have been in direct communication with Owen Williams, Kasparov's business manager who is here in Florida. I have reached two of the three people necessary to get the proposal in front of Fischer.

We are trying to move things along and get them to commit to a dollar amount.

The original plan was $5M to the loser and $10M to the winner, but it may take on a new form altogether.

Each start with $15M.

Each win, the loser hands the winner $1M from their own suitcase.

Each draw, white surrenders $250,000 and black surrenders $100,000.

A 13 game match is currently on the table.

Grim Reaper: WOW. That'd be something. Age looks to have taken its toll on Fischer, but it wouldn't be missed in many circles. Have you ever personally corresponded with either one?

Looking for a game with Anyone rated 2300 or higher I have one open slot I am in the waiting room waiting for a game

Beren the 32nd: Kasparov vs. Fisher still may happen. I have been in touch with Owen Williams, the international business partner for Kasparov. As both Kasparov and Fischer have publicly denounced the desire to play chess anymore (Fischer being the advocate of FRC now), I asked Owen what it would take to have Garry play Bobby a match of Gothic Chess, which, of course, is not chess. He mentioned a dollar amount, I passed it on to an Atlantic City promoter, who is now looking to make it happen. Two of the three people necessary to get Fischer on board have been reached, no word from the third as of yet.

More details will be on http://www.GothicChess.org in upcoming weeks as we revamp the website.

rabbitoid: This is a link to the fourth in a 'trilogy' of articles concluding beyond reasonable doubt (IMHO) that Mr. Kasparov was the best ever.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2409
The basic argument as I see it is that without the existence of Kasparov, Karpov would have dominated the world chess scene far more thoroughly than anyone else ever has. So the fact that Kasparov beat him up so much and also dominated for roughly as long proves the case.
Again IMHO, his early retirement was his best 'move' ever, and I wish him every success now in the opening phase of his new political challenge.
Best dream match? Kasparov vs Fischer would have been awesome.

rabbitoid:

Joseph Stalin. There's no record of him having ever lost a single game.

I have some (weak) documentation about Morphy having actually played Steinitz. That is currently being discussed there as well. From some scrap of paper found in a chess book written by Lionel Kieseritzsky years ago, it appears we have a "signpost" indicating they did play, although the game itself is not yet found.