1. Using your own books and your own games that you have played yourself, using computers that you yourself have played and copied.
2. Making use of a good friends library which could contain millions of games played and originated by others?
3. Making use of a site to which you have paid dues which offers games free for download.
4. Making use of a friends computer which is much bigger and faster than your own, including clusters for rent or use.
5. Making use of a software specifically designed to collect games from various sites?
6. To collaborate with friends on a current active position.
7. All of the above?
My view, these days with internet, all is fair in love, war and chess. But they all three can get you killed...
>My view, these days with internet, all is fair in love, war and chess. But they all three can get you killed...
totally agree with you Scott,totally agree
about that answer,i dont know;i just remember their latest fight,and well,i dont think that answer was never reached...maybe at private it was,and im wrong
If being done privately
If being done privately "
"I might consult a super gm for this position tonight!"
Guess you talked about the weather with your super gm?! :-)
Btw, you have big mouth I like it .
I only write my opinion.
I accept all.
We know, all points write by Scott are real.
I think the chess is one, 32 pieces and 64 squares, Me concetrated in the positions, and I use all my "guns", ALL, and i no have problem if you or others opponents use same criterio.
But I think the corr chess is better if the guest or players don't comment about the positions in public. But, again, it is only my opinon, for me ALL is ok.
i am not talking about general comments on a game on which side looks better any fool can see that,but deep AN and then making a comment.
i am careful and try not to fall into that trap.
> the problem is Ruben if someone comments after you have played a move and says X move may have been better,it makes your opponent rethink his game,i agree with Garvin on this and believe it should be at least a couple of moves before anyone posts serious thoughts on the game.
Also the issue is that while a move may have passed a person says that another move may have been better, it can give one of the players additional ideas about a plan, or reveal by transposition a better plan than the player would have found on their own.
Move suggestions or ideas for better moves should only occur when the position has dramatically changed, in effect when the previous idea no longer applies.
If i am looking a plan as white (e.g.), and not found a good way, and an "Especialist/Expert" say "here white have 60% win", sure sure sure i will continue searching. Is it fairplay? My opponent will be perjudicated.
Is only my opinion.
There's no difference in these two cases:
1.- Player A plays Player B. Player A has a nice advantage but can't find the winning plan. Player C, unrelated to the game, appears in it and tells Player A the winning plan. This is unfair because there's no Player D helping Player B defend. Player C just decided to help Player A arbitrarily, and now, the game result depends on the whims of Player C, while it should depend on how A and B play.
2.- As (1.-), but Player C helps Player A privately.
I can argue that case 2 is even worse than case 1, as Player B is unaware of what's going on, and doesn't hear the plan that is going to be played against him.
I can even construct a case 3:
3.- Player A plays the beginning of the game, while Player C plays once Player A is out of book, for the rest of the game.
This would seem fine, because at no point the players team up or share analysis? But it's still unfair, because Player B is misled about thinking he's playing someone else from where he's playing. This is specially bad when Player B spent a lot of time preparing against an specific opponent he's not playing.
And the same goes for playing with a different name, as in, would it be fair if ppipper hadn't signed up for this year competition, but instead, had Mark Eldrige as his proxy? (ppipper plays from the shadows) I think it would be unfair to the players unaware, that don't know they're playing ppipper, and play stuff that would work against Mark if they were playing him. The same applies to cases 1-3, where players aren't playing who they think they're playing.
Unfortunately, it can't be put in the rules as it's something that can't be enforced, if someone decides to help someone else privately nothing can be done about it, but if they're caught they can be kicked out (there's a precedent).
Now, I'll go about the other numbers:
>1. Using your own books and your own games that you have played yourself, using computers that you yourself have played and copied.
>2. Making use of a good friends library which could contain millions of games played and originated by others?
Anybody can collect those games, or play private games of similar quality. Fair.
>3. Making use of a site to which you have paid dues which offers games free for download.
Anybody can pay such site to have access for the games. Fair.
>4. Making use of a friends computer which is much bigger and faster than your own, including clusters for rent or use.
This is not different from someone buying a friend a much bigger and faster computer for the tournament. Whatever "unfair" remark that can be put here, could be claimed for someone buying himself a much bigger and faster computer for the tournament, or even, someone having it already while another player is stuck playing in a dual core.
Some players are going to have hardware bigger than other players, regardless of how they got it (by themselves of from a friend is irrelevant) and that's true in all computer chess tournament, the only solution would be to force all players into the same hardware but that's ridiculous. Fair.
>5. Making use of a software specifically designed to collect games from various sites?
Heh, what's this obsession with getting games , that's only going to help you in the opening anyway, and actually could be counter-productive if your opponent happens to have a strong novelty ready for the line that you played with all these games. So I'm going to tag it as fair.
I tend to consider everything fair play but 6, in case it was not against the rules.
However, I dont mind if my opponent is playing with human assistance, provided I know it in advance. I would consider totally unfair to think that I am playing against one person when I am playing against a team.
These answers matter.
That is what fair is.
On this topic, fair is what the rules allow, and in case the rules are not clearly defined, fair is what I tell you it is
So lets refrain from calling whatever happens here unfair, because whatever it was, is unprovable anyway.
Edit: *=a matter of money and other resources, the more the better...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill