Is it cheating to use youtube during games?

That's a pretty clear example of note-taking, which is usually not allowed.

I think one way to look at it is that live chess is not really the place to practice.  Of course, you can learn from your live chess games afterwards when you do the analysis.  If you want to practice and play at the same time, I would suggest online (correspondence) chess so you can have fun and practice your opening at the same time.

Game explorer and analysis are great tools but give an advantage to premium members. This is an issue chess.com should address and determine if the advantage is a form of cheating.

In correpondence, those features are allowed. Anyone can generate a large database (or multiple databases) of master level games to use in play and use local boards for analysis (don't need to use site resources).

The site's own rules and the tradition of correspondence style chess both allow that and thus are not a form of cheating.

Thank you Martin . I was not aware that correspondence chess had the same features for every chess player.

To all those who responded that it's "clear cheating" - I definitely re-read the rules... I've only been playing two months, and I know that engines are like, hxc cheating (other than just free wins, I don't understand why someone would do this... I don't think it would make you any "better" at Chess... you aren't learning anything), but I guess I never realized that note-taking was against the rules.  I've got some other games I've played where note-taking is actually encouraged, so I just applied the same logic - Lesson learned.  

As for practice, one of the biggest things that I think maybe I didn't "grasp" until your comment (@jurassicmark) is that people take an online rating that doesn't actually mean anything seriously.  I've always thought of online chess as just practice for OTB, and the reason for "timed games" is so that you can learn to play under that clock pressure.  I guess I can see it also being a ladder though, and people are competitive within ladders, and so that makes sense.  I used livechess as practice, because I don't get to play on the board ever, so I go and do some chess study, then I go to live chess and see if I can implement in a real game.  Doing study then tactics is fine, but tactics are set up positions.  You don't get to create those positions, just find the play, so I like to do a healthy mix of both.

@ap_resurrection - Yeah definitely.  I did try to get quick edit in - I totally see how note-taking can be considered cheating.  I definitely think youtube is cheating.  You are literally having a very skilled player not only walk you through the moves, but also walk through why it's good.  With my notes, it was definitely more of a situations where I would get three moves in, and they would play something funky and I would be completely lost, and feel like I got nothing out of that game (practicing the opening that is).  Like I said, I've completely ceased all note referencing in games (seriously, only the first, like, five moves max I promise! I kinda feel like Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong now...) because I don't ever want to be labeled a cheater.  Careless reading of the rules, sure, but to me being new, I felt like the way to cheat at chess was to have someone or something tell you what the best move it -- notes are just that, but I didn't initially see it that way...

Anyway, I do think that livechess should be used for practice, because there aren't any good places for lower elo players to really practice openings (that I've found), and I've tried the opening and game explorer functions on this site (I got a premium mebership for some reason or another...), but when I'm in game, my opponents very rarely stick to book moves by their 3rd/4th turn, unless they are playing White, in which case I don't even need notes to begin with (When I play black I kind of feel the moves out... because I also read new players shouldn't focus too much on openings, more theory.  I am trying to learn and master one white opening before I start trying the same for black).  

The difference for me is that I will never get better not playing chess against people (live or OTB), so essentially every game for me is practice, but I can see how other's would view it differently, and I definitely see how others may have different opinions on notes, or maybe not even thinking notes would be a thing, which creates an unfair advantage for me... I haven't really ever used notes beyond the first few games of a new opening (I've only used them for two openings, so maybe 5-6 games total), but I definitely will never use them again.

-Just wanted to respond, because I felt like I self incriminated myself, and kind of made it seem like I was this habitual or gross cheater (ala Armstrong) when I think a better comparison would be I'm like, half the Patriots football team (US Football) who had no idea deflation was going on... innocent bi-standers because they didn't know it was cheating that they were playing with such lowly inflated balls.

@Oatmeal

“LOL, I'm aware of all of that, even if it is blue for no reason this time.”

What do you mean by BLUE? Did you misspell true? Or do you just like colors? ;)

“I am not confusing a notation device with a note.  It's you that's doing that. You keep throwing out this red herring about Wesley So, who was taking notes during a game, being forfeited.  He was taking notes, not notating chess moves.  We can all agree notating chess moves is legal, note-taking is not. I'm not making any notes during the games, only using the computer as the notation device.  Therefore, what I am doing has absolutely nothing to do with what Wesley So did.  Again, it is you that's confusing those two things, not me.

Also, I like you telling me that a physical chess board cannot be used during a tournament game.  I don't think I've ever read anything as nonsensical as that.”

Now, now. Be nice oatmeal.

By a “physical board”, I am obviously referring to a second physical board with pieces set up to a specific position sitting next to the original board.

If a physical board cannot be used in a tournament game, then why should it be used in an Internet game?

“Bottom line, you are trying to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify something that is just not true.”

I think it is YOU who are trying to use mental gymnastics to justify using a physical board during an Internet game. You wanted feedback and then attempt rationalize your position, not attempting to look or address the stronger points in a post.

"It is not illegal to use a physical board and pieces during an online game as long as you only have the current position on the board at all times.”

I think you missed the conclusion. Or maybe you didn’t read it. You certainly didn’t address it.

I stated, “A physical chess board is not a notation device. It does not record moves, but it does provide a reference point to a position. It can also be used to construct a position or even to help you remember which bishop is the king-side bishop.”

That is something that can help you. That is a note.

I was able to find the actual rules in the United States Chess Federation (USCF) Official Rules of Chess.

Article 15.1

a) During play the players are forbidden to make use of handwritten, printed, or otherwise recorded matter, or analyze the game on another chessboard (which is what you want to do) : they are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice or opinion of third party, whether solicited or not.

b) The use of notes made during a game as an aid to memory is also forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves and the time on the clocks.

c) No analysis is permitted in the playing rooms during play or during adjourned positions.

d) It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in an manner whatsoever.

I mentioned So’s misadventure as background. But anything that is a note, or could be considered a note, whether that not is created by the player or not, is not legal.

What would you claim if your opponent found out that you were using a physical board during a game you were playing him and he objected to you having one? He could claim that such a physical board, with some justification, that such a use is disturbing. That is also illegal.

If you do not tell him, then why not? Would you take away the board if he asked you to do so?

This is baffling. You spent half a page battling a straw man. Again. I have repeatedly and specifically said the physical board must represent the current position and NOT be used for analysis, and you still quoted a page of irrelevant rules and then accused me of wanting to use the board to analyze.

Note that by "analyze" I and the rules are referring to moving the pieces around to look at future variations. But, even if it meant just looking at the board (it doesn't), in the case I'm describing, it is not a second board. It is the primary board. I never even look at the board on the computer except to enter the moves. This makes it analagous to a monroi. I have repeatedly explained this to you, and you insist on either ignoring it or not understanding it. You may continue to do so in this thread at your leisure if you wish. I am untracking this thread and will no longer be notified of any responses in it.  This topic is not relevant to the thread, and I have no interest in defending what the staff of many different chess servers have repeatedly and specifically told me is perfectly within the rules any longer.  It really is irrelevant that you don't think it is within the rules when it clearly is.  Have at it.

@Oatmeal

 “I have repeatedly and specifically said the physical board must represent the current position ...” Actually, no you didn’t.

“Note that by "analyze" I and the rules are referring to moving the pieces around to look at future variations.”

Analyzing a position does not require one to touch or move a piece. Again, the board is a reference point, as I pointed out before.

You have a playing board on the computer screen and a second board in front of you. Unless you telling me that the computer screen on chess.com has no board on it?

You already admitted you DO MAKE A MOVE ON YOUR PHYSICAL BOARD and that therefore it is not a static position.

 “But, even if it meant just looking at the board (it doesn't), in the case I'm describing, it is not a second board. It is the primary board. I never even look at the board on the computer except to enter the moves. This makes it analagous to a monroi.”(Which is illegal. A player must make his move, and then enter the move on his Mon Roi. This prevents the potential analysis as I will explain below.)

The big issue with a Mon Roi is this: When someone makes a move on ANY board, he is already seeing future positions, or at least seeing them clearer. This is before he moves on the board he is supposed to be analyzing and playing on. If a player, after making a move on his Mon Roi, decides he does not like the tactics or position he sees on his Mon Roi, he can change his mind. What is to stop him from checking all his moves on his Mon Roi before making them on his board he is playing on?

 What, you are essentially doing when you have a physical board in front of you is exactly the same as using a Mon Roi in determining your moves.

As a TD, that would be grounds for immediate forfeit or expulsion from a tournament.

Whether you follow or track this page or not is your choice. Nothing I did, nor anyone else, did, or failed to do, can be held accountable, for your decision.

@sharkon,

There are several ways to “learn an opening”. One is to play games that feature games of the opening you want to know further and play them over on a physical board. The mind tends to remember slightly better seeing a physical board more than using a computer (I could attempt explain why, but it would be a very, very, very, very long posting).

To help even you even more, get a book of miniature games that feature your newly discovered opening. Several books such as Bill Wall’s “500 Queen’s Gambit Miniatures” and “500 Queen’s Gambit Miniatures 2” come to mind. You could probably find them on Ebay or maybe even Amazon.

For more information on miniatures, and other openings, you might visit

 http://www.thenewchessplayer.com/miniatures.html

Hope this helps!

Why I came back to read this, I have no idea, but you are literally wrong about everything once again.  Amazing.  Are you doing it on purpose?

> Actually, no you didn’t.

I absolutely did.  This is just proof you are not reading what I say and that you don't even comprehend what you do read.

> Analyzing a position does not require one to touch or move a piece.

The rules, and my, usage of the verb "analyze" in this context very clearly refers to testing variations on the board.  Otherwise, an extra board would serve absolutely no purpose.  This is just a silly (and probably purposeful to be argumentative) misinterpretation on your part.  Literally, what good would a second board do for analysis if you couldn't move the pieces?  Idiotic.

> You already admitted you DO MAKE A MOVE ON YOUR PHYSICAL BOARD and that therefore it is not a static position.

I'm sorry, but this is another, literally, idiotic one.  Of course I make a move on the board.  It's my turn and that's how chess works.  What on the actual planet is wrong with you?

> (Which is illegal. A player must make his move, and then enter the move on his Mon Roi.

No, it's not illegal.  You just literally don't even understand what is being said.  I will try to make it as simple as I possibly can.  That hasn't worked yet, so I have no idea why I'm trying it again.

OTB: physical board keeps track of the position, monroi records the moves.  player cannot analyze (move the pieces around to test variations on either set)

ONLINE: physical board keeps track of the position, computer connected to chess server records the moves.  player cannot analyze (move the pieces around to test variations on either set)

These are literally the exact same things.  Both legal under the rules.  I have no idea how I can make that any clearer.

>What is to stop him from checking all his moves on his Mon Roi before making them on his board he is playing on?

What is stopping him is it's illegal.  This may also not be done in the situation I listed above.  The player may not move the pieces around to test variations.  For the 1000th time.

>What, you are essentially doing when you have a physical board in front of you is exactly the same as using a Mon Roi in determining your moves.

Nope.  What I am essentially doing is determing my move while looking at my physical board, making the move, and recording it on the server.  It is literally the exact same thing.  As long as the player does not move pieces to test variations (make a move, look at the position, take it back, make another move, look at a follow-up, reset the position, look at a different move), there is absolutely no difference.  

Also, if you want to claim the possibility that I could make a move on the board and then take it back with no penalty because it didn't officially enter the move when I moved it makes it illegal somehow, this is no different than hovering the piece over a square in your chess.com interface.  Touch move doesn't exist for most online chess servers, it's much more like clock-move.  That said, to be as consistent as possible with OTB rules, I never do that, nor do I hover a piece when playing without a real board.

This could not be any simpler or clearer.  I absolutely give up.  Someone else can hold your hand through this if they want.

@Oatmeal,

“The rules, and my, usage of the verb "analyze" in this context very clearly refers to testing variations on the board.  Otherwise, an extra board would serve absolutely no purpose.  This is just a silly (and probably purposeful to be argumentative) misinterpretation on your part.  Literally, what good would a second board do for analysis if you couldn't move the pieces?  Idiotic.”

You mean it is impossible to analyze a chess game without moving the pieces? Then how would you describe the process in which a person might discover a checkmate within five moves without moving a piece? Or thinking about the next move or series of moves in a game? Or trying to solve a chess problem on a train or bus? The verb “analyze” is used to describe these processes.

“What is stopping him is it's illegal.”

What makes you think that someone would not do something illegal if he wanted? It has happen many times before, and will, no doubt, continue.

This is what I am describing how it is illegal for you to use a Mon Roi in entering the move and then making the move on the board. Let’s get this straight. You have a physical board in front of you. You intend to make a move on the board and then play it online.

But when you make the move on your physical board, you notice an error. Do you change your mind and search for a better move? And then enter that new move online?

As a TD, I can’t let that possibility occur. It is unfair to the opponent. And illegal.

Ok, we can delete this thread now!!!

@Barefoot_Player, the rules about using another board for analysis are not for mentally analyzing the game, they are clearly referring to making a move or moves on the analysis board; that is why there are USCF rule clarifications on making the move on the board before notating with a electronic scoresheet.

There is nothing wrong here about playing on a physical board in Live and reflecting that move in the client. What would be wrong is trying out variations first. Thing is, the discussion is a bit of a temepst in a tea pot as it is impossible to keep people from playing on a physical board and impossible to detect even if it was frowned upon, which it isn't.

Personally, in a correspondence game, I will study the opening if it's new to me, maybe even watch some Youtube videos, and play accordingly. And if I know I am at an advantage because of a blunder by my opponent, and I saw it in a video, on a page, etc. I think it's perfectly fine to go back and look it up (in correspondence). But I never get any help whatsoever during a Live game.

@Martin,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The USCF uses the same rules as FIDE in their Over The Board (OTB) tournaments. With minor variations, mostly to make the rules easier to understand, the USCF also uses the same text.

Article 15.1 (FIDE)

a) During play the players are forbidden to make use of handwritten, printed, or otherwise recorded matter, or analyze the game on another chessboard ; they are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice or opinion of third party, whether solicited or not.

Official Rules of Chess 1.17 A (USCF)

1) During play the players are forbidden to make use of handwritten, printed, or otherwise recorded matter, or analyze the game on another chessboard. They are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice or opinion of third party, whether solicited or not.

I do not see where either FIDE or the USCF specifies that to analyze on board, one needs to move their pieces. In fact, by not specifying, it seems that these rules would also cover a player who has the current position on a second board next to the board used in the tournament.

FIDE was created in 1924 and the USCF was created in 1939. Both organizations are several decades old. This issue has surely come up before. Can you cite where the USCF or FIDE state that having second board next to a tournament board is OK?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“...it is impossible to keep people from playing on a physical board ...”

I agree, esp., if no one can see you doing it. But being impossible to detect does not mean it is legal.

We are not talking about OTB tourneys here (or rated OTB play), which is specifically what those rules cover. Using a physical board here is legal so really, quoting OTB regulations doesn't mean much.

But the whole side discussion of having two boards side-by-side being a benefit in analysis isn't the issue and isn't what the regulations are about. An analysis board is one usually used to physically try out variations and that is really what is being forbidden. If the physical board is where the moves are made and a player is just transcribing those moves to the electronic interface, that is fine.

So why would a player need or want a physical board to play his move first, before making his move on the electronic one? 

More trouble is the fact that such a player may not, and probably does not, intend to ask his opponent if it is OK for him to use a second board.

 It is hard to think that such a second board does not offer an advantage over the opponent who is only using the electronic board. Otherwise, why would a player use a second board?

And before you answer that his opponent could use such a system himself, this would open the door for ANY type of cheating, such as active help from an individual or a computer.

“Using a physical board here is legal so really, ...”. Please cite something or it is just an opinion. I used the FIDE and USCF OTB rules as they seem to be the only, or maybe just the best, rules to govern any rated tournament that can be played and is not a correspondence game. What standards are you using to determine if something is illegal or not?

Side point: I know the CCLA, USCF, and ICCF correspondence rules. Most of the online correspondence rules follow the USCF. The big difference is that both USCF and CCLA rules prohibit using a computer to analyze, while ICCF rules allow their use.

This is chess.com not fidechess.com , don't pretend like they have the same rules for an online site and an OTB physical game

Why use a physical board? To mimic OTB play as much as possible, because a physical board may be easier for them to visualize and play on, etc. What is really hard to see is how a physical board really offers any advantage at all, except to those people that have problems with electronic boards.

You want me to cite how I know it is legal. Easy, go to the rules on what is prohibited and you will see that the use of a physical board us not listed. Again, this is not a USCF or FIDE tournament situation but when I get access to my rulebook I'll look and see if there is anything in there about it in the section for Internet play.