Programs in e-mail or server-based checkers

[Pedro Saavedra]

Everybody complains about progging in on-line games, but what are/should be the rules for e-mail checkers or server-based (as in WODC or IYT). Quoting from this site:
=============================================
The rules of correspondence play are the same as that of American Checkers / English Draughts. Players may take up to three days to postmark their next move and send it to their opponent, who in turn has three days to reply. Players may use any resource available to them including books, computer programs, and other players. Only the retired monster computer program Chinook is off limits for advice.
=============================================

Should these rules apply to e-mail checkers? A player who reaches the same position in a correspondence and an e-mail game may wish to use legal help for the one, and that would assist him in the other. What then?

I agree with both the no progging for live play and the everything but Chinook for correspondence. E-mail play is closer to correspondence, but often faster. Should it use the same rules?

[Ingo_Zachos]

...

I agree with both the no progging for live play and the everything but Chinook for correspondence. E-mail play is closer to correspondence, but often faster. Should it use the same rules?

Hard to tell.
I would say, yes, because you can't prevent the use of programs.
And, as you said, a serious player may do a computer-based post mortem, and thu have had computer aid, even in accordance with thw rules.

But if you want to learn, just keep the usage of the program limited to check your own post mortem, even if compuer aid is allowed during the game.
Remember, an online game is just a preparation for a game.

Greetinx from Dortmund, Germany

ingo Zachos

[Pedro Saavedra]

Ingo says:

> Remember, an online game is just a preparation for a game.

Do you feel that way about a correspondence game? Because there are both chess and checker players who prefer correspondence play to crossboard. I personally prefer e-mail play to crossboard (or to live online). This is both due to logistics (there are few straight players nearby, and I do not like to travel) and by the fact that I do not have the time to memorize lines (hence prefer to look them up and do my own figuring when I hit a new line or want to try a cook).

It is the use of computers which I find ambiguous. I like the way the correspondence rules are phrased. But there is no equivalent formulation for e-mail.

[Martin Fierz]

Ingo says:

I like the way the correspondence rules are phrased.

Hmmm, I don't understand a part of these rules:

Only the retired monster computer program Chinook is off limits for advice.

Who has access to Chinook anyway? What exactly separates Chinook from other programs? Chinook with equal databases is almost certainly weaker than Cake / KingsRow / Nemesis. If any monster program might be accessible today, it would be KingsRow 10-piece...

cheers
Martin

[Pedro Saavedra]

Martin says:

> Hmmm, I don't understand a part of these rules:
> Only the retired monster computer program Chinook is off limits for
> advice.

I take them from:

http://usacheckers.com/mailplaychampionship2004.php

[Gene Lindsay]

The rules for that match were made 4 years ago, which is a long time in computer technology. I would galdly let you use Chinook against Kingsrow with its 10 piece database. I doubt if you would stand a chance.

Gene Lindsay

[Patrick Parker]

i would take kingsrow 8pc over chinook

[Pedro Saavedra]

[> The rules for that match were made 4 years ago, which is a long time in
> computer technology. I would galdly let you use Chinook against Kingsrow
> with its 10 piece database. I doubt if you would stand a chance.

My interest is what ought to be the rules for e-mail checkers. If some people use them to analyze in general (to build up their knowledge base) are they to avoid any position that has come up in an ongoing e-mail game?

I'll give you one difficult example. I am playing a line when my opponent comes up with a cook, or at least a move not in my sources. I continue to play into a losing variation. I am eager to discuss it or examine it, and just then somebody else pulls the same cook (which tells me that it is probably in some source I do not have).

At this point ought the rules to allow me to examine the position in a computer or to ask the first opponent what his source was, or to analyze the first game at a club? The correspondence rules I cited would say yes (for correspondence checkers at the time). Some club rules seem to say no to a computer (but can one play the line from scratch to see what the computer does with the cook, if one plays against the computer regularly?).

I think it is absurd to play an e-mail match where the computer is playing for you. What is the point? On the other hand, the analysis of a cook seems more rational (if wrong unless agreed upon). And when I used to be active in a chess club, I recall many a time when a correspondence player would bring a difficult position to get players opinions. While I avoided that, I would often try to reach that position in speed games to see what my opponents would do.

That is why I ask what the rules for e-mail checkers are or should be. I am comparing them with correspondence checkers as expressed in that write-up. Have those rules changed? What are reasonable rules now?

An interesting rule would allow the use of the computer once during the whole game (or a fixed number of times). That would allow analysis of a cook, but not having your opponent play the computer instead of you. Again, this would have to be stipulated.

So what is the future of correspondence or of e-mail play in this world of computers? Assuming honesty, how should the rules be written?

[Patrick Parker]

there wouldnt be an honesty
why fool yourselves