Purple: I dont think anything, just because i dont understand what you mean

Andersp: I'm not necessarily advocating it but what would you think of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

EdTrice: Sure...start as many "test tourneys" you want who cares.

BUT AGAIN If one "engine" is allowed all "engines" must be allowed, doesnt matter who created them.

Caissus: This is a rule that is in place right now.
When rules are changed..then they are changed not before hand

Stevie: since which time do we have these game guidelines? Fencer has said that he want formulate them correctly in the next time.

Sumerian: no wether you tell it or not .. it remains the same .. you telling it clear to everyone is better than not telling .. but still i can see the point of people who dont want to play against a computer .. or if they do they want to be informed about it

by using a program and not telling anyone in any you are breaking the rules .. but using a program and making it possible for other people to find out is a vague area .. to use a program and tell everyone explicitely about it .. is a less vague area and could be allowed more easily .. not to use a computer would be the best though ;)

(not to make a computer to think out your moves for you of course .. you always need a computer to connect to this site ;))

Game Guidelines:

"NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play"

Why are you using this site? Test it at a site that allows computer.

Hrqls: "...but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?"

But what, if I haven't told anything about it? Would then all have been happy to live in a world of illusion? You could not change reality by penaltilyzing those who frankly speak on that what they do. And in my special case I only have organized MY OWN experiences into the form of an unready program, I am not using any bought product.

Using computers is against the rules. The idea that it's the responsibility of other competitors to check whether or not anyone is admitting to breaking the rules is outrageous. What if a person admits on their profile to entering a tournament under several different names? Is that also okay because it's admitted? I dont see a problem with a computer user openly inviting an opponent to test the machine but the idea that it's the opponent's responsibility is ridiculous. I probably haven't read more than 15 profiles of all the members here and certainly dont want to start doing so. If I want to play with a computer I won't come to a site for humans, that's is obvious and any excuses about what's on a profile is eyewash.

Caissus: heh .. so lets say i am a top chess player .. would like to play persons and not computers .. i see a tournament .. i check all people who are signed up already to see if they are not computers .. they are not .. i sign up .. then just before the tournament starts i have to check all profiles of newly signed up players as well ? .. hmm i am lazy ;)
(but then again being lazy probably also doesnt give me a high chess rating, so its not really an issue fo rme personally ;))

Hrqls: They could read it too .

yesterday I couldnt access brainking for a while site not "available".. and today ever so often browsing is slow.
Is there something wrong Fencer? or my end?

Sumerian: but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?

personally i dont mind (that much) playing against a computer .. you cant check it for real anyway .. but i can understand people who dont like it. especially if they have a high rating and can lose a lot

ughaibu: I do not expect it. But when one doesn't look, he should not be surprised, that he might have missed something.

It's nonsense to expect all entrants to tournaments to read the profiles of all the other entrants.

BIG BAD WOLF: If one doesn't use his possibilities to get available informations about his opponents, you cannot blame the opponents for that. I do not make a secret of the fact, that the improving Smirf beta program mostly would be assisting me.

Again I point out that your problem is not this circumstance but that I frankly have published Smirf's usage in my profile. So following your arguments would not create a kind of "cleanroom", but instead a scene of players using hidden all kind of assistance instead of being able to freely provide open information on that.

And because Smirf will have its defined strength it is not necessary to exclude me / Smirf from being rated.

EdTrice: I think what has made many upset is the fact that they are now playing against "a machine" without being told - and if they knew before they joined the tournament that they would be playing against a computer - it may be a little different.

I don't see a problem with him using his SMIRF program IF everyone he plays knows about it before hand - and actually the games should also be non-rated also - otherwise it will cheat not only who plays against him, but also everyone else who has a rating.

Andersp: Can't we have exceptions on a tournament by tournament basis? Everyone knows of the experimental S.M.I.R.F. program, and Reinhardt is just trying to improve it by testing it on others.

It's not like he is being subterranean with his intentions.

harley: I agree ..the problem is not if Chessmaster or Trice can beat a chesscomputer or if Trice wants to pay money if a computer wins his tourney.
The problem is that IF Fencer says OK to one engine he has to say OK to all.

Ed, it wasn't because you posted, it was just that your post was more chess orientated, talking about specific chess moves, rather than just programmes and cheating in general that was being discussed before.

Stevie, there are 7 global mods, choose a different one to complain to.

Stevie: That's easy: try another glob mod...

EdTrice: Ed it wasnt personal, i suggested it before you joined in also

It mentions to go to glob mods when you have a problem with a moderator.
What abouut if your problem is a glob mod who has a vendetta against you?

Well, before I posted, everyone was allowed to debate that topic here. The list of commenters included Sumerian, Caissus, CzuchCheckers, RedSales, BBW, Hrqls, ScarletRose, and the list goes on.

As soon as I post, it is "off topic" according to Stevie.

Can someone please explain this?

Chessmaster1000:
I agree with you completely!

shhhhhhhh Purps, no one asked you
Its been chess discussion all along if you ask me.

I think Harley has finally agreed anyways

Shouldn't Harley or Flooz re-direct if they think this is on the wrong DB?

Its definitely veered towards chess discussion!

Stevie: FEEL BETTER

How was that for a shout?

EdTrice, Computer vs. Human could be an interesting topic on the Debate board.

EdTrice:

Thetype of game does not matter: chess, checkers, Gothic Chess. A good player with the proper motivation using this technique will never be defeated by a computer, and he can also beat a computer in this fashion.

If you mean ONLY correspondence games then:

At Chess: a good player with the proper motivation can beat the computer (meaning the top one's) rather enough times, can be beaten enough times and draws will occur most of the times.......

At Gothic Chess: a good player with the proper motivation can beat the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V) most of the time, can be beaten rather seldom and can draw few times.........

At Checkers: i have no idea about Checkers...........

If you mean long(classic) time controls games then:

At Chess: ONLY the top players in the world can beat the computer (meaning the top one's). And i mean not in a single game out of 10, but in a match of 8 and more. Right noe the battle is equal .

At Gothic Chess: a good Chess player can beat with great difficulty the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V).

If you mean short or blitz time controls games then:

At Chess: NOBODY in the galaxy can beat the computer (meaning the top one's and not only). It's already difficult to take just one game out of 8 or more, so no thinking about winning..........

At Gothic Chess: a good Chess player can't beat the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V). He can take some games or draws but beating it is too tough.......!


At fast time controls, like game in 10 mins or faster, Vortex kills me. At time controls slower than game in 2 hours, there is no program that can win against ANY strong willed player of skill.

Do you mean of course Gothic Chess program and not Chess program.......


This has been well documented in the chess playing community for decades. Strong correspondence players still outperform computers.

The word still is critical. It shows that the gap is closing.......In my opinion we may be to the point that computers are starting to surpass us at correspondence also. Perhaps not yet, but it's close.....

come on..surely this does belong elsewhere by now????????????????

Take a look at this game, between ChessCarpenter and myself, played on the CowPlay.com website at the end of 2004:

http://www.gothicchess.org/gotm_2004_10/game.htm

Now fast forward to my 14th move as black.

14...h5 looks to be an error as it lets my knight
be taken. It looks like I gave up my knight for "no reason".

This was a strategic trap to bait the white
archbishop to attack in a sector of the board where it would soon be out of play and useless.

While still down material, I was able to open up the center and get his king in trouble. No matter how he decided to deal with my advanced pawn, taking it would spell disaster, and not taking it only delayed the invevitable.

This type of "look ahead thinking" is far beyond the search horizon of a computer. In fact, if you replay some of ChessCarpenter's moves as white, Gothic Vortex will make similar moves, taking the material (my knight) without understanding the "big picture".

Vortex thought white was winning from move 14 onward, and I would play that position against any program on the planet and be able to win it.

Again, I mention this because some people's posts on here seem to think I use Gothic Vortex when I play on here. Nothing is farther from the truth.

At fast time controls, like game in 10 mins or faster, Vortex kills me. At time controls slower than game in 2 hours, there is no program that can win against ANY strong willed player of skill.

This has been well documented in the chess playing community for decades. Strong correspondence players still outperform computers.

I have read quite a few posts about Sumerian, the S.M.I.R.F. program, the topic of the prize money, and the numerous comments about "cheating".

First, I am happy to pay Reinhard the $25 for winning his section. If you divide this by all of the hours he has put into his program, this is really pennies per hour.

Second, I get the sense that some people think programs are really invincible. This is clearly not the case, even if you let them think for days on end.

I have played a Janus game against Caissus where I had a mate in 27. It took me about 6 hours to go through it all and verify it before I sacrificed first my knight, then my janus (Archbishop).

I play on two boards. One has the current position, the other is how I analyze.

I play every move of every game down to the endgame before I make a move.

You get much more insight into the game that way than any computer program can provide.

Thetype of game does not matter: chess, checkers, Gothic Chess. A good player with the proper motivation using this technique will never be defeated by a computer, and he can also beat a computer in this fashion.

In my Gothic Chess game against WhiteShark, I was able to announce mate in 31. It required sacrificing a Chancellor for an Archbishop, then losing a Knight for just a pawn very early in the game!


I could let Gothic Vortex search for 6 months and it would not make these moves.

Just something to consider.

Skyking: Its been discussed on the pond board Skyking..take a peek

Does Fencer have plans to have a pond ratings or something like that soon. ?

anastasia: I saved this site into 1 of my F-Keys as well. When I reset my password, I clicked on "remember this" box. When I do leave & come back, I 'll just click on Log In & I'm automatically at the mainpage.

Look at the address bar and copy paste the address of the game page here. The game ID is contained in it

one of my games im playing (hyper-backgamon)

when ive moved there are no boxes underneath,you know the ones?..msge,notes,move to next game....nothing at all so i cant play it...no game # so i cant tell fencer so he can look.
its only this game can anyone help me here?

anastasia: If you type www.brainking.com into the GoTo box, it should take you to the login page. At least it does for me. (I normally come to the site through an F-key, which brings me directly to my main page).
Then once you are on the login page, tell it there to remember your info again. You will be all set until the next time you clear your cookies!

anastasia: if you click on log out I think youll find the login page. I believe it's the same for webtv ppl as with PC? Not 100% tho

I cleared all my cookies to make things go faster on my msntv,now I can't find how to automaticlly login,help please.Is it on my settings page and I'm just not seeing it,lol? Thanks in advance and I LOVE THIS SIE!!!! :)

if u r going to take that out of UG then pls give every1 the site where u can find cheating programs. Then BK could be know as the program cheating site. hehehe
:o{P

Have tried to do searches to find programs to help me play the games. I like to play but, guess I'm to dumb to know what I'm doing. So if people want to play a person that they can know for sure is not cheating. Guess every1 knows my name now.
:o{P

I think it is silly to even go by ratings on the net.. so many peeps out there are so serious at being in the top spot.. they will go to extremes.. heck.. I play for fun.. if I lose.. (which I do often).. then I lose.. Big deal.. the conversation and challenge was fun..

To those that do use programs to aid in their game.. Why bother coming to a site with real players?? Why not play your program.. *shrugs shoulders*

BIG BAD WOLF: I don't think so.

redsales: I would not delete it - you would be surprised about how many would then use outside programs just because "it's not against the rules".

redsales: What is easy to prove is that I have written a program by myself. It would not make a lot of sense if someone will use a bought one, but you have no webcams on both sides to control what the opponents really are doing. Therefore it would make sense to encourage players to speak frankly on their way to produce good moves. If they would not be honest with that, they would mainly betray themself.

If you are interested in seriously testing, please send me a message with your ideas on that.

Fencer: or deleted. There is no sense in having a rule that cannot be enforced.

Sumerian: I have no suggestion, since it is unfair to single you out. Besides, even if you say you are using a program, no one can prove it so I think any talk of violating the user agreement is spurious and I support you in this regard. If you need a low 2100 ELO rated chess player to help you play test, I will do so gladly.