Turn-based ethics

[Pedro Saavedra]

I know this is a constant topic with me, but I love turn-based checkers (and chess) and have always had questions about propriety and ethics since the days when I played it by snail mail in the 1970s.

Here is a situation. I am playing a top player and we are following Basic Checkers. Then he chooses a variation where BC merely refers to a game I have no access to.

1) Is it proper to ask a friend or post a query for the specific game?
2) Is it proper to ask a friend if he knows any published games with the exact sequence of moves (assume here that Google and other sources has not found it) or position?
3) If a friend offers a published source that includes annotations, is it proper to use it?
4) If a friend offers his personal annotations of the game or the position - made before you asked about it, but not published - is it proper to use them?
5) If a friend takes the position or the published game and makes his own annotations in response to the query, is it proper to use them?

I am convinced the first one is proper, as it is no different than asking for a copy of the tournament book if he has it. I would have serious reservations about the last. The others are intermediate situations. I would be interest in the opinion of other turn-based players.

Pedro

[john reade]

Did you consider using a computer program?

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear Pedro,

I can only say that the following should be guidelines:

1. Don't cheat.
It is illegal and unfair to manipulate the timer, the moves of the opponent or to let a program or a "friend" play your game, may it be for one move , for several moves or for all moves of the game in question.

2. Learn
It is not forbiden to analyze a game with the use of the program or a friend, provided the game has alreday finished.
Use a pen or a database program and write down the moves.
Also use a sheet or a database program to write down your thoughts during the game and all variations you thought of.
After the game you may check it for blunders or improvements.

3. Obey the server rules
Some servers like IYT allow using of books, so you can use your library without any violation of fair play.
Others don't , here you should stick to that and only use your memory.
Never use a program that calculates or "blunderchecks" for you, that is always unfair, and does spoil your efforts to improve or train your calculation abilities.

4. Be prepared
It is never forbidden to make preparations before starting a game.
It is like in a tournament: If you know that your next oppoent is likely to use a special line, try to find a cook, or a refuation, that you memorize, it is likely he will fall for it, or that he knows better and you can learn a lot at least.
But make sure that the preparation efforts end after you made your first move.


These r my guidelines, based on fair play and learning efficiently, for playing on "turn-based" servers.

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Pedro Saavedra]

Dear Pedro,

I can only say that the following should be guidelines:

3. Obey the server rules
Some servers like IYT allow using of books, so you can use your library without any violation of fair play.

These r my guidelines, based on fair play and learning efficiently, for playing on "turn-based" servers.
Ingo Zachos

Yes, but where you can use your library, you can use the public library or the library of a friend or an Internet collection of games (e.g. the Nemesis site has many world championship games without annotations and where BC cites one of them, I go there to check out the line played). While you should not use a friend to analyze a position, if I know I am seeking the game Jones vs. Smith in the 1947 New York State tournament, I would think that asking a friend if he has that game in any book of his would be as legitimate as asking Google to search the net for it. The gray area comes if the friend helps you find other published games with the same line or has his own notes on the line and shares them with you (and does it matter if those notes are published?).

The instance in question is one where we have followed a line in BC. My opponent has played a line given as a cook played in a certain game, but BC only gives the reference and I do not have it in my personal library (I mentioned that I gave up most of my old books years ago when I moved to a checkers desert and did not dream the Internet would allow me to play again). So my question is essentially how legitimate it is to seek help to find a published game or to find published materials on a given line. And as a matter of fact the situation most recently happened in IYT, but I have been in similar situations where one book I have references another one I do not have or a game I have no access to.

Pedro

[jimloy]

My understanding is that (on IYT.com) it is OK to use published play, in your library, or in someone else's library, including games and annotations. And that means that you can ask people or computers what published play says and they can tell you (by email or whatever) what is published. It may be OK to ask for and use games that were played (or annotated) in the past, but were not published. But you cannot have someone else (or a computer) analyze your moves for you, until later. And I think you can get your moves from a computer's ending database, as this is all published (in its own way) and is not being analyzed by the computer.

[Pedro Saavedra]

My understanding is that (on IYT.com) it is OK to use published play, in your library, or in someone else's library, including games and annotations. And that means that you can ask people or computers what published play says and they can tell you (be email or whatever) what is published. It may be OK to ask for and use games that were played (or annotated) in the past, but were not published. But you cannot have someone else (or a computer) analyze your moves for you, until later. And I think you can get your moves from a computer's ending database, as this is all published (in its own way) and is not being analyzed by the computer.

That is exactly my understanding, which leaves some gray areas. For example, I have thought of posting a query regarding a cook cited in BC. My query would be for published play in that line, but there is a chance that somebody would proceed to give his own (new) analysis of the position. Another gray area is when there is an ongoing discussion of a position in a forum and one has a game that reaches that position. Must one stop reading the forum? And if we claim the forum is published (assuming we did not bring the position up) what about an analysis session in our local club?

Here is another gray area I faced in my correspondence play days (only I did not even consider that it could be a problem). I had a regular crossboard opponent. I did not ever ask him to analyze a position for me, but I would try to play games which would reach positions I had in mail play to see what he would do. Was that ethical? Would doing the same with the computer (but not setting up the position or taking moves back) be ethical?

Pedro

[jimloy]

What you describe is not rare. In particular, mail players do aim for the lines that they are currently playing elsewhere, because these are the hot lines and because they may have been heavily analyzed just days ago.

Let's illustrate the dilemma: If you are trying the line over the board, and your opponent may say, "move there and it's a Fourth Position draw." You're in hot water because that is at least one move of analysis into published play. If you knew that already, then I would say that you did not gain illegal info. But, if you didn't know already, it may be unethical to "move there" to get the draw. I think you may have to avoid benefiting from unsolicited, freshly worked up, analysis. Unless you can prove that it really was published, after all.

On the other hand, if you are playing two games simultaneously (maybe one over the board or maybe not), I think you can legally benefit from your own analysis in either game.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear Pedro,

I have given you my guidelines above, and now the last one:

If u r in doubt if that what you do is legal or not, then don't do it.

Rely on your own abilities, and not on someone else.
The least you can say is that it was your game, and that you deserve credit for it.
That's the sense of your game, so why spoil your credit with a shade of doubt ?
Don't be afraid that you might lose, as losing is always the other side of any gold medal, and a wise man knows that a world without losers is a lonely and dull place.

Greetinx from Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Pedro Saavedra]

Dear Pedro,

I have given you my guidelines above, and now the last one:

If u r in doubt if that what you do is legal or not, then don't do it.

When I play even informally any game, be it bridge or scrabble, I keep a copy of a Hoyle or rule book. Meaning that I want to take advantage of every legal opportunity without doing anything illegal. You and Jim are giving different views of what is legal. I agree with Jim, but wish that a formal discussion of these issues exsted in writing in some official way. I do not want to cheat my opponent, but I do not want to cheat myself.

Jim seems to suggest one good set of rules: 1) It is legal to use any published source (and that in turn requires definition) even if provided by a third party or search engine. 2) It is legal to use any notes gathered from other games you played, analysis with the aid of the computer before the game began and any analysis you conducted at any time without the aid of man and machine.

That still leaves several gray areas and I wish we had an organization to which queries could be post by players desiring a clear definition of what is legal and what is not.

Pedro

[Ingo_Zachos]

Pedro,


my advioce was very simple:

Don't go to any "gray area".
Use your own analytical skills instead.

Be fair, don't cheat.

Easy if you r willing to accept it.

Just like taking no drugs and substsances to enhanece your powers at the Olympics.
Taking something, if they r not on the list of "forbidden" subtances, with the aim of cheating is doping as well as taking those drugs that can not be identified by the tests.
I know this is NOT how the majority of athletes think about it, but maybe thinking that there is a "gray area" is the quality that makes an Olympic medalists these days.

Once more:
There r no "gray areas", if you take the rule that if it is not clear if you can do it, you simply don't do it.

Greetinx from sunny, but cloudy Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos
I

[Pedro Saavedra]

Pedro,

my advioce was very simple:

Don't go to any "gray area".
Use your own analytical skills instead.

Be fair, don't cheat.
Ingo Zachos
I

I disagree vehemently that there are no gray areas and that taking advantage of the rules is cheating. If I were playing you a friendly game, knowing how you feel, I would spell out dos and don'ts and it might take three pages. And in the end we might decide not to play.

One reason I bring these things up is precisely that I think the rules need to be spelled out. You will recall that when Badger (Mary) started GT as an ACF site I asked about a dozen questions. I still have about a dozen more that have not come up. One is very precise. If you are looking for a specific game or article (because you came across a reference in a publication you were following), is it cheating to ask a friend if he has a copy? I feel one is allowed to use published play that would be available to your opponent if he searched, and help in finding the specific game or article is not cheating.

There is one chess site that does not allow the use of books in turn-based play. I simply will not play there. But I would rather sites were more specific on the rules.

I have seen many friendships strained at a game table for lack of a Hoyle. We need a Hoyle for turn-based play. Taking advantaged of what is permitted while avoiding what is not is part of the game.

Pedro

[john reade]

What does 'turn-based' mean? I never heard the word before.

[liam stephens]

Turn-based tactical gameplay is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations. Tactical role-playing games are a part of this genre.

A real-time strategy (RTS) video game is a strategic game that is distinctly not turn-based. According to Brett Sperry, the phrase real-time was used to distinguish such games within the broader genre of strategic wargames, which has a longer history both inside and outside of video gaming. Some important concepts related to real-time strategy include combat- and twitch-oriented action. Other RTS gameplay mechanics implied are resource gathering, base building and technological development, as well as abstract unit control (giving orders as opposed to controlling units directly). Generally, the player is given a top-down perspective of the battlefield, though some 3D RTS games allow total freedom of camera movement. Additionally, the in-game user interface is much like a computer desktop: the player can manipulate controls and in-game units with techniques such as clicking and dragging. Each player in an RTS may interact with the game independently of other players, so that no player has to wait for someone else to finish a turn. This lends the genre well to multiplayer gaming, especially in online play, compared to turn-based games.


Hope this makes it all clear.

[jimloy]

ItsYourTurn.com is "turn-based," which means that the games are played one move at a time. On other servers, both players are online and play in real time. With turn-based, the opponent may not be online, and may make his/her move later. Turn-based games approximate the pace and some of the rules of mail play.

[john reade]

I don't see any difference between 'turn-based' and postal checkers. Why the new name?