From: jeff@econBerkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers in correspondence play
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:38:16 GMT
Organization: Econometrics Laboratory, U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily4.berkeley.edu

In article <1k7dbhINNrjr@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, mkerry@eng.umd.edu (Michael Kerry) writes:

|> Is it justifiable simply because I would not be using the computer 
|> at the time of the game?  Yet, were I to use the computer then, its analysis
|> would not have changed, so is it not the same thing?  Or could I just use
|> the analysis that I wrote down as long as I didn't refer back to the
|> computer during the game if my opponent deviated from it?
|> 
|> In general, I'm iffy about the whole prospect, but stuck because I
|> now have at least a general idea of what to do if such a position
|> ever arises again, simply by virtue of having spent so much time
|> using the computer.  Yet, all of my "improvements" are computer
|> generated!
|> 
|> Any ideas on this dilemna would be greatly appreciated! 
|> 
|> Thanx very much.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Michael Kerry                  |"Why is a raven like a writing-desk?" 
|> mkerry@eng.umd.edu             |                 -The Mad Hatter
|> Institute for Systems Research |"Because the notes for which they are noted
|> University of Maryland         | not noted for being musical notes."  -Sam Loyd 


It is clearly a blurry distinction between using a computer for analysis of
a particular postal game position, and using previously acquired knowledge
of the position when the previous analysis was aided by a computer. In this case,
however, I think there is a simple answer.  Since your analysis was carried out
completely independently of any particular postal game, it can safely be placed
in the same category as any other previous knowledge legally usable in a 
postal game.  A good rule of thumb might be that computer-aided analysis is only
illegal if it is motivated specifically by a current postal game.  Meaning
that any analysis is okay if the choice of subject position has no causal
relationship to any current game.  Since your analysis presumably precedes
any actual occurrence of the position, I would consider it perfectly legal.

Of course this raises further questions.  What if at the time of the OTB game
you describe, you actually had a postal game in the same variation?  Would it
be okay for you to analyze the position on your computer after the OTB
game?  I would say no.  Also, what if your OTB opponent wants to analyze
the game afterwards?  I would say that is okay so long as you do not generate
any particular discussion which does not organically arise solely out of the 
game in question.  

There are many ways to cheat in postal chess, and the rules are unenforceable.
But a person who wants to play fairly can always rely on his own judgement to 
settle an ethical question.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Ely                         |    "He said the Sun's not yellow...  
Department of Economics          |     It's Chicken!" 
UC Berkeley                      |
jeff@econ.berkeley.edu           |