|
|
|
Topic: Integrating "chess assistance" into a CC game
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I was reading through an old chess forum post the other day and I couldn't believe my eyes:
A master level player was discussing an opening variation with another player and mentioning that he ultimately prefers OTB games because he can be reasonably sure that his opponent is not using computer assistance. To which the other player replied that using computer assistance is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE and that he belongs to a circle of people that have taught him how to "reasonably integrate computer assistance into their games" and for someone to bring up computer assistance as an objection to playing CC was really beyond the pale as there is nothing wrong with using it. 
Man I wanted to jump in there and totally confront that guy but alas I looked up and the post appeared to be 2 years old and the thread was actually locked. 
I am still astonished that this master level player didn't take him to task for his stance (because it is totally unreasonable).
I would of liked him to of pointed out that:
1) Effortless scanning of automatically generated candidates can only weaken a player's actual chess skill because they do not learn to develop candidates for themselves.
2) Computers do not think like live players do and are able to generate an advantage over human play that is terribly unfair.
3) There is no way to "reasonably" integrate computer assistance into one's play; you are either pregnant or not -- there is no half-way!
That being said, the compuer is an excellent analysis tool for AFTER the game and much learning can be done there (although one should not make it too much of a crutch).
I guess I feel better now. 
Raeth
|
|
|
It is my own choice to never use assistance of any kind during a game.
That includes the opening book which is no different in my opinion.
I don't care how many games I lose from poor openings.
I'll learn someday! 
Still, there is no point in getting frustrated over something that can never be changed.
I can think of reasons why a player would use assistance. Each of us playing on QA
has a different reason for being here. I would only hope that those
players stabilize their ratings so that other players know what to expect.
Training is one thing, but chasing wins or tournament titles is not a valid reason.
A 1500 rated player making 3000 quality moves spoils online chess.
Please don't manipulate your ratings!
|
|
|
Back in the days of postal chess, opening books were acceptable. I guess that would indicate that opening books or their computer equivalents would be acceptable in this digital version of postal chess now. If so, it should still only go as far as the opening.
|
|
|
I saw a discussion a few years ago in which engine use in cc games was called “ethical cheating.” Whatever that means. One strong otb and cc player said he always assumes his opponent is using every “help” that is available.
This is not uncommon at that level. Most players at the upper levels of international cc play feel engine use is justified and they see nothing inherently unethical in their use. Engines are viewed as just an additional tool to be used in determining a move. That said, at that level engine generated moves without the input from a really strong player won’t win any prizes. It won’t get you an international cc title either. If all it took to play at that level was an engine, I’d be playing for the world cc championship.
I’ve played in a few tournaments on a site where engine use is allowed and personally did not find a lot of satisfaction in plugging my games into a computer and just accepting the generated moves. However, I accept the fact that some people find this fun and if they enjoy playing chess that way, it’s OK with me.
Most engine users will be at the upper levels so for most of us the chances of playing them are rare and they will mostly be playing each other.
My feelings may be colored by the fact that I’ve been playing cc since 1959 and haven’t actually studied chess for years because I no am longer interested in things like ratings and improving …just having fun.
|
|
|
Hey, Odie, if you're not interested in ratings, how about losing a couple of games to me?
Oh -- you say that wouldn't be "fun", eh? Sigh. 
|
|
|
Well Odie at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that this master level player DID deride this other player for having the "computer give his answers to him", where he chose his own candidates. :)
|
| 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
