the side-effects of cheating

Using chess engines during a game is not allowed generally on all chess sites. I would like the pose the question "why?" What are the negative side-effects of a person using an engine to benefit themselves during a game?

First we have to discuss the point of chess.com to answer this question. That would be learning, entertainment, and to network with the chess community. Competition is second compared to the three aspects previously mentioned. The competition of USCF and FIDE are of another world compared to chess.com. I just don't see competition even coming close to the value of learning, having fun, and the community of this site.

Now, what is the reason for no computer assistance? The main reason is competition. Simply put, there is little competition if people are just playing against a computer. Also if someone wanted to play a computer they would not be on this site. These are just two compelling reasons of many to never allow assistance on chess.com. 

However, what are the actual side-effects of “cheating”?

First, what effect does it have on the one using the engine? This is debatable, but I will argue that it depends on how it is used. I will agree that you won’t improve as much as playing a game with just your brain. Many will learn very little, so little that it would be pointless to allow such a thing. On the other hand, are there not benefits for the one using computer assistance? I can not prove this nor give any good evidence to suggest so, but I find the more I think about it the more I could truly benefit from such games (computer assisted vs. computer assisted).

Imagine playing a game that both players have agreed to computer assistance. A high quality game will be played (anyone can use the free Rybka 2 engine from their site). One player will just make the moves the computer tells them to make and be done with it. That is not what I would do and would beg the question of even playing such a game. I would first find the moves that I would make. Then I would consult the engine and its different suggestions. I would explore possible lines and try to find the reason behind the moves. I would not end up crushing my opponent because we would both be using an engine. Can anyone deny the value in this? This would be very valuable to high level players and probably not so for low rated players because they might not be able to decipher moves. These are the positives and negatives for the one using the engine.

What are the effects for someone playing against the cheater? They lose the game. If they don’t know the person is using an engine is it any different then losing any other game? If they analyze the game they would learn just as much as any game.

The effects on the overall community of chess.com if assistance was allowed would be devastating. The current quality would be gone and I think everyone can agree on that.

After all I have said I would still say that allowing assistance would be a stupid idea. So what is the point of everything you have just read? Could I have really wasted all of your time? No. My point is that computer assistance can actually be beneficial and is not as bad as it seams. Perhaps a second rating pool that only involved computer assisted games would allow people to benefit without destroying the current system. What do you think are the actual effects of computer assistance? Would you benefit from computer assistance? Would you like a separate rating pool for computer assisted games or another solution to allow you to benefit from computer assistance while still being able to play and learn from regular games?

I was inspired by this forum post http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-only-way-to-eliminate-cheating

edit: sorry for that first paragraph of junk. I think it is because I typed this in word

edit2: oh its gone now haha.

If these people who "consult" computer programs would sign up as computer users no one would have a problem with them. They could play other computer users for the learning experience. Members would have a choice if they wanted to play against them or not. It's when they sign up as regular members, use the programs, cheat people out of their wins, take credit for games they didn't win and ratings they didn't earn that get people upset.

How do you sign up as a computer user? There is no official way as far as I can find. And if there is some way to officially be a computer user then it would be off limits to anyone on the site already because creating two accounts is against the rules. Regardless, putting the computer users along with everyone else would degrade the community. The community would not like it and the computer users would be secretly classed as cheaters by everyone. On top of that the computer users would be lucky to play a game against a human(like I said in my first post, no one wants to play a computer) and the number of computer users would be slim. I just don't see this as being affective.

My solution would allow anyone with an account to play a computer game right away, no fuss no hassle. You would still be able to maintain all of your regular chess games and rating. No need for some "computer user" to be outcasted from the community, everyone would be a computer user and not a computer user. It is just a matter of is there enough to benefit from computer users playing computer users.

"...cheat people out of their wins, take credit for games they didn't win and ratings they didn't earn that get people upset."

Is it really that bad? Do you get angry thinking "man, that guy must be a cheater"? How exactly do people determine who is a cheater? How different is it to be beaten my the unknown computer user and a good player? The only one being cheated is the computer user themselves. They gain nothing(depending on how they use it) and the one who lost can learn as if it was any other game. As long as the number of computer users are relatively low then there are no noticeable side-effects.

This site is not about competition so them earing something they didn't earn makes no sense. there is not prestige, no money, there is nothing for having a high rating. With the number of players on this site chances are even as a computer user you will not be noticed. Words are the power of this site, they are what can truly show knowledge. Now tell me, how is a computer user stopping anyone from earning what they deserve?

My point is about the side-effects of computer assistance. I am arguing that there is very little negative side-effects from the few that cheat. Playing against your computer is very different from playing computer assistance vs computer assistance. Also playing against your computer is different from playing against someone you don't know is using a computer. I agree, it is no fun getting stomped by a computer, but does this mean we should ignore the potential benefits of what I have been talking about?

I am not suggesting people secretly break the cheating rule. Again I am just saying that it is not as bad as everyone seams to claim. Also no ones fun and trust is being ruined.Why don't you point me to a user, a cheating user who has gain a lot and is breaking everyones trust and taking away all of the fun?

Yes, you can try and play your own computer with its assistance. But tell me, why don't people play themselves? surely it would be the best opponent. The same reason that what you have suggested wont work. When two different people play  they can choose any line. They can choose any style of play. They can pick any opening. The same can be said for computer assisted vs computer assisted. Psychological there is a huge difference between you playing your computer and you playing against another player using a computer.

And the people who are 2500 must be recking everyones fun also. Like I said before, It only hurts the people using the computer. I have probably played against at least one person who used computer assistance by now.  Did it ruin anything at all for me? Did I have less fun? Would I even care if I now knew that that person used a computer? No, no, and no. How do you not see that when someone chooses to use computer assistance it effects them more then anyone else. If the other person does not know it effects them very little. And the effect on the overall community is null.

The chess you are describing is already played - it's called advanced chess.

fuse,

I don't know how to put this more delicately. Don't do it.

1. Your genitals will shrivel and fall off.

2. There is a Buddhist hell specially for chess players who cheat. In that realm all you can do is to play chess. But all games end in a draw.

3. You will be interfering with the development of all chess players who wil feel compeled to take the time to heap keyboard scorn and abuse on you.

I don't plan on "doing it". I would only if there was some official way. I could join a computer assistance tournament to see what benafits there are and that is probably what I will end up doing.

Is every one just so conditioned that they can not look at the effects of cheating from a logical perspective. Everyone automaticly assumes cheating is bad. No one has given any good reasons to suggest this very bad effect cheatings seams to have.

I agree with fuse on the point where people automatically condemn cheating as bad, which is wrongful I believe.  However, I DO care if I lose to someone who is cheating in anything.  I like to think that my rating, even if it's just chess.com, is a tool for measuring my performance and if I feel that I've been wronged by cheating or used a computer against someone else, then I lose credibility with myself.  If I wanted to play a computer I would, and often do, the nice thing about playing humans is that sometimes intuition, trying new things, and gutsy playing can lead to far greater learning and insight then just the advanced lines.

That is a valid point. You will go down in points because of someone cheating. And this rating system is the cornerstone of chess for me. I think this is a very little effect. You go down in points, but you can still learn as if it was any other game. The cheat only gains the effort he put into the game. I have almost played 200 games now and I am guessing very little was effected by cheating. I am at 2000 and am trying to improve and be proud of what I have accomplished. If someone beats me with a computer or superior play I still have much to improve on. How many topics are all about cheating, I think this cheating taboo is a obsession and a delusion of so many people.

Yes, you have been nice and I hope I have been as well. And because we disagree that must make me an idiot. Did you miss the part were I try to turn "cheating" into "learning"? I agree that cheating is wrong. I have never said that it is ok to cheat. I am just saying cheating is not so bad that it will infuriate people into childish name calling. If someone wants to cheat against me then so be it. They are the ones cheating themselves.

Computer assistance isn't cheating if it doesn't break the rules.  It's that simple.  If one is playing a game where the other assumes he is not receiving computer assistance, he should not do so.  However, if it is clearly stated that it is allowed in an unrated game or tournament, it is not considered cheating.

I believe chess.com allows computer-aided games (advanced chess) in unrated tournaments if the TD clearly states that "computer assistance is allowed."  Check out the terms of service at the bottom of the webpage.

Agreed. But what of the effects of cheating? Is it as bad as the atmosphere that the forums suggest? Would you find a computer assisted vs. computer assisted game helpful to your progression?

fuze22: "Agreed.  But what of the effects of cheating?  Is it as bad as the atmosphere that the forums suggest?  Would you find a computer assited vs. computer assisted game helpful to your progression?"

Good point:  First off, I probably wouldn't find a computer assisted vs. computer assisted game helpful to my progression.  I just find these type of games somewhat entertaining.  I, personally, like to use my mind and only that to play chess.

Secondly, I agree fully with your thesis on cheating.  Would I care if someone else is cheating?  The answer is no.  And what if my rating drops?  I like to say that a rating is simply a number.  It does reflect ability, but not accurately.  People who secretly use computers do only cheat themselves to the extent they don't learn.

This is a good forum topic.  It is the learning experience that comes from playing chess that we should value, not the gain in rating points or the number of wins or losses we accumulate.  Winning is satisfying when we work hard for it, and draws are satisfying when we work hard for them.  Heck, even losses are satifying if we put in a lot of effort and feel that we've played a great game.

sounds like something a cheater would say fuse22, cheater. lol

lmao funny, i can't believe people actually try and sell us this pro-cheating garbage, what a waste of time pitting chess engines against chess engines.

Since you know when you are being cheated, how often are people cheating? I don't think anyone has said cheating is ok. Did anyone say that? your statement proves the dilemma I refer to. Your judgment is clouded and you seam to have missed the whole point of this topic. The title will give a pretty good clue.

Why do people get so upset about being cheated. If you were fighting for the world title then you have a good reason to be upset. Is going down in rating comparable? I am sure someone has cheated me before. It has not stopped me from improving and enjoying chess. But like I have said before, no one can actually cheat you, they only cheat themsleves.

To convince someone of something you should give reasons. I can just as easily say the opposite of what you have said, could I not? And it would be just as "convincing" as what you have said. Laugh all you want, but realize that if fantasy rules are the only reason you can use for your argument then you might as well be talking in another language.

I never said cheating is a good thing. I am not pro-cheating. I don't think cheating is as bad as people claim.

Win, lose draw, whatever.  All a game.  Except for when your opponent cheats selectively.  If a player always cheats, then this is indistinguishable from his or her just playing well, by virtue of being a good player.  A player who always cheats becomes a de facto good player.  But I have lost games -- without making any obvious mistakes -- to players rated way lower than I am, who in other games just give away pieces and miss obvious moves.  Yet against me, they play a flawless game.  This does not happen too often, but when it does happen, I am not thrilled.  And it certainly casts suspicion.  Are they cheating?  Maybe so.

By the way, all the anger that has been expressed in this forum (and elsewhere) suggests that players are angry about being cheated.  For me, annoying is more accurate than infuriating, but recently it became infuriating when one of these players who beat me with a flawless game beyond her abilities compounded the problem by lying and being rude.  During that game she said that I would get a rematch.  When I sent that challenge, she declined it with no explanation.  When I politely asked why, I got no reply at all.  I tell you this not to gain your collective sympathy but rather for the probative value of the evidence.  Did she have some axe to grind that made her especially interested in beating me, to the point that she was willing to cheat?

As I stated in many forums, cheaters only cheat themself... Just look at it this way:  Let's say you cheated, and won, after the game in about a minute (or sooner) you will get a tingling sensation in the back of your head, and that will hammer this in: I SUCK for wasting my time at this, I SUCK for doing this,I SUCK at chess, I HAVE NO INTEGRITY, I AM A WIMP!

It's not a good feeling, I am telling you, so to all your cheaters, KEEP ON CHEATING, I don't give a shit, don't matter to me...and there is no money to cheat up....