The ethical issues are the same, and they are as ambiguous in postal checkers (which I played years ago, as well as postal chess). I have asked not so much to decide what to do (though I did have a real situation) but because I would like to see an article or a posted set of rules that clears up many of the ambiguities. In these days of computers and search engines, some issues arise which never did when postal play was done by snail mail, but some of the old issues linger. I enjoy games where I can tip-toe to the border of the rules, take advantage of them, but not violate them. This is a common strategy in different games and I consider it legitimate, but the rules should be spelled out so one player will not hurt his chances by being too scrupulous or another have them helped by stepping over the line. Yes, there is no way to enforce them, but it serves as a guide for players for whom these things matter.john reade wrote:I don't see any difference between 'turn-based' and postal checkers. Why the new name?
Say you are playing a postal game (in days before computers and data bases) and you get into a variation of the Flora Temple you do not know or can find in your books, and suspect it might be a cook. You have a friend who is an avid player, belong to a club, and are playing other postal games. Which of the following are OK?
1: You ask Joe to help you analyze the position (this is clearly unethical in my opinion).
2: You ask Joe if he has a copy of Duffy's Single Corner you can borrow (this is clearly ethical in my opinion).
3: You show Joe the position and ask if he has any books or published articles which might discuss it.
4: You know Joe has compiled unpublished notes over the years and ask to see his notes on the Flora Temple.
5: You do the last and Joe updates his notes upon hearing it and then gives you his updated notes.
6: You challenge Joe to an evening of checkers and try to play the Flora Temple whenever you can.
7: You challenge Joe to an evening of checkers where you agree to play both sides of the Single Corner every game.
8: You challenge Joe to an evening of checkers and you agree to play both sides of the position.
9: You attend a lecture by a master who reaches the position before the cook, and you bring up your opponent's cook as a question.
10: You are playing another postal game against an opponent who plays faster and is stronger than you are, and you play the cook to essentially get your second opponent do some of the research work for you.
Show these to other postal players and you will get different answers as to which are ethical. The advent of computers make things more complicated. I recall one mail play championship which made the use of any computer except Chinook legal. That was before some other computers increased considerably. Incidentally, I think there is room for man-computer teams to compete with one another, as I do not think the stronger computer will inevitably win or that two players with the same computer will draw every game. But that has to be stipulated in the rules beforehand.
Some leagues or servers have different rules than others, but few ever get into such details. I would like to see discussion, but "when in doubt don't" is not helpful, precisely because I believe that knowing the exact rules, taking advantage of them, but never overstepping them, is one of the things that makes the game exciting for me. And I would like to see an article posted in a website to which players can refer to make sure they have the same understanding of the rules. Perhaps I am too obsessive, but I used to never begin a game of twenty questions with my kids during a road trip without going over the rules and appointing my wife (who does not like to play) as referee. And as chess tournament director thirty-some years ago I made Chess Life with a ruling which some friends still debate (a player resigned in a stalemated position -- I ruled that stalemate ended the game and thus it was a draw). That has made me a rules buff thereafter.
Pedro
