Stephen Moss

[Roger Lancaster]

No not much more to add.

If only

Pots and kettles ...

[JustinHorton]

One word more than mine, Roger

[Roger de Coverly]

"You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only

That's an impossible condition for chess.com to enforce without creating false accusations. How do they know which authors have or have not consulted engines in the course of writing their books? For that matter how do they know that main lines didn't evolve without engine assistance? You probably cannot even use your own private pre-game research if it was created with engine assistance.

[Brian Egdell]

"You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only

That's an impossible condition for chess.com to enforce without creating false accusations. How do they know which authors have or have not consulted engines in the course of writing their books? For that matter how do they know that main lines didn't evolve without engine assistance? You probably cannot even use your own private pre-game research if it was created with engine assistance.

From my understanding (as a member of chess.com and its Cheating Forum up until July 2020 and having seen no evidence that the policy has changed since then), engine-produced opening analysis is okay provided that the player does not turn the engine on to work on a position which is currently occurring, or could soon potentially occur, in a current game.

That is indeed tricky to enforce. But such is the nature of cheating detection.

[Roger de Coverly]

engine-produced opening analysis is okay provided that the player does not turn the engine on to work on a position which is currently occurring, or could soon potentially occur, in a current game.

I'm not a member of chess.com and don't play "daily" chess in any form. But I would regard such a clause as an unacceptable constraint on OTB play where I might wish to prepare for a particular opponent or analyse a recently completed game.

Anyway how does engine detection determine whether engine use is before the game or during it?

[Brian Egdell]

I'm not a member of chess.com and don't play "daily" chess in any form. But I would regard such a clause as an unacceptable constraint on OTB play where I might wish to prepare for a particular opponent or analyse a recently completed game.

That is a very reasonable objection.

Anyway how does engine detection determine whether engine use is before the game or during it?

With great difficulty I imagine. We are not privy to all chess.com's detection methods, but my guess is that this rule is probably virtually unenforcable.

We do know that typically the first 12 or so moves are disregarded in cheating detection, and that applies to live games as well as daily games. This probably explains why Stephen Moss got away with it up until he wrote the article.

[Joey Stewart]

"You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only

That's an impossible condition for chess.com to enforce without creating false accusations. How do they know which authors have or have not consulted engines in the course of writing their books? For that matter how do they know that main lines didn't evolve without engine assistance? You probably cannot even use your own private pre-game research if it was created with engine assistance.

I don't think they care that much if the position develops into a full game and mistakes are made - they have got to know that all opening books of any quality in the last 30 years will have engine analysis in them. It is more a problem when players are reciting the theory well beyond move 20 and end up winning shortly after, thus making the play from their account indistinguishable from that of a computer.

Bottom line here- don't use books to learn tons of theory!

[Roger Lancaster]

One word more than mine, Roger

You're right, I shouId have omitted the "and"

[Roger Lancaster]

"You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only

That's an impossible condition for chess.com to enforce without creating false accusations. How do they know which authors have or have not consulted engines in the course of writing their books? For that matter how do they know that main lines didn't evolve without engine assistance? You probably cannot even use your own private pre-game research if it was created with engine assistance.

I don't think they care that much if the position develops into a full game and mistakes are made - they have got to know that all opening books of any quality in the last 30 years will have engine analysis in them. It is more a problem when players are reciting the theory well beyond move 20 and end up winning shortly after, thus making the play from their account indistinguishable from that of a computer.

Bottom line here- don't use books to learn tons of theory!

The difficulty distinguishing between analysis (which may include computer assistance) before, as opposed to during, an online game has already been aired on this thread several times and is in danger of being repeated ad nauseam.

[Chris Goodall]

The time has come for me to confess to cheating in online chess. I have spent the last 20 years training a crude neural network of my own development on a dataset consisting mostly of my own games with occasional contributions from experts, and relying on the output of that network for >99% of my moves (the remainder are the work of a random move generator running on the same hardware, which activates automatically when my clock is showing less than 5 seconds).

[Jon Tait]

You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess

Hmmm. Not sure what they mean by "books without engine evaluations". All books nowadays use engine evaluations. Indeed, there seems little point in publishing analysis at all if it's not been evaluated by an engine. (Okay, Chris Ross would disagree with me there.)

And what about databases? As I wrote in a recent blogpost, I use all my resources in Daily chess:

"minutely-researched openings, numerous databases (OTB, CC, engine tournaments, and my own engine-enhanced analysis), an extensive library (close to 500 books), and suchlike"

In particular, I have about two dozen mini databases dedicated to my pet lines which I keep constantly updated with new games and engine-driven analysis. (A lot of this went into my book, and almost the only reason I play Daily – or its equivalent elsewhere – at all is to refine the theory still further.)

Chess.com didn't have a problem with that before, but perhaps they've changed their position. Or perhaps they don't care because I'm only playing a couple of mates anyway.

At blitz I only play 3/0, which seems to eliminate most engine use, or at least render it less effective. The problem then is ping rate. I often lose time scrambles to players who seem to reply the very instant I've moved because their ping rate is so much faster. 3/1 might counter that, but then...

[Roger de Coverly]

And what about databases? As I wrote in a recent blogpost, I use all my resources in Daily chess:

from the linked blog

Chess.com have in fact "concluded" something twice. The first time (2014) I was banned for "cheating". The second (2016) I received an automated “Warning about suspicious play”.

That and Justin's case are a pair of examples where chess.com "cheat detection" is less than reliable. Perhaps they've improved their methods, but there remains a suspicion that their investigations don't know what plausibly is pre-game research and theory and what isn't.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Jon,

My idea would be no good for 3 minute or 3+5 which I used to play. I was thinking of maybe a 15 minute game.
The ruling is full is; "You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only
(not in Online / Live play)" I'm reading the part in brackets as you cannot do this whilst a game is in progress. Which I speculate has been tagged on as an afterthought instead of re-writing the whole rule.

[Gordon Morse]

From the Guardian letters page:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... nline-game

[Roger de Coverly]

From the Guardian letters page:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... nline-game

I think she, if it's she, expresses the views of most of us. There isn't anyone of that name on the ecfrating site, so either she's online only or it's Sue Dunham.