Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ackack]

(and sometimes even pre-game analysis like I open $5/$2 on a Colony board that has no real engine. Should I open Mine or Jack ? 30 seconds later I know it's Jack... I don't know if people think that's cheating???)

Within the confines of Isotropic where card manipulation is presumably impossible, this seems like it's about the top of the list in terms of cheating. Force disconnecting your opponent would beat it, but that's probably about it. I'm kinda puzzled that this would be a question.

[theory]

(and sometimes even pre-game analysis like I open $5/$2 on a Colony board that has no real engine. Should I open Mine or Jack ? 30 seconds later I know it's Jack... I don't know if people think that's cheating???)

Within the confines of Isotropic where card manipulation is presumably impossible, this seems like it's about the top of the list in terms of cheating. Force disconnecting your opponent would beat it, but that's probably about it. I'm kinda puzzled that this would be a question.

Is it cheating if I look up the best opening on CouncilRoom, or do a quick search of this forum to see if anyone has talked about how to properly play NV/Bridge?

I think consulting a simulator is pretty high up on the list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it crosses the line.

[ackack]

Is it cheating if I look up the best opening on CouncilRoom, or do a quick search of this forum to see if anyone has talked about how to properly play NV/Bridge?

At the beginning of a game? Yes, I'd say so.

I think consulting a simulator is pretty high up on the list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it crosses the line.

If it doesn't, then almost nothing does. Consider the extension to the case where a computer player is the strongest player in existence. Now let somebody echo the moves from that computer player against their opponent. Is that cheating? I'd say obviously, yes. There's clearly a difference in degree, but I don't think there's a difference in kind. Especially since Geronimoo mentioned that he was talking about situations where no engines were feasible - in other words, situations where the simulator is likely dominant. And that weighting of which engine is better is going to be a huge majority of the actual strategic input into such a game.

Not that we overlap on Iso much, but I wouldn't play Geronimoo after that disclosure.

[DStu]

Fork please...

[greatexpectations]

i think it is comparable to a poker player looking up the odds for a certain play or draw. if you know the odds coming in (as most elite players do) then you can feel free to use them.  but to look them up during any competitive play would be illegal or at the very least frowned upon. 

that being said, you still need to know how to properly play those odds, or in this case the key card of your deck.

[painted_cow]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

To the simulating before game opening: Imo its a bit shady, you cant ask a friend in Magic whether or not you should keep this hand etc. Or consult a computer in chess. Doing this in tournaments is not really nice (Did you use it against me in the first 3 rounds of IsoDom? Just being curious, because this were all Boards without Engines if I recall it correctly). Say you take 3 minutes before the game to "analyse the board" aka simulation. It is a ethical question of course, and no one could possibly hindering you from using your own tool.

@greatexpectations: Wow, its really hard to click on a card like JoaT or Smithy in BigMoney games. Not much skill needed for this 

[jonts26]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

Wait...where do I come into this?

[Thisisnotasmile]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

Wait...where do I come into this?

This was originally in the Analyzing the Board guide until the fork lol.

[Donald X.]

imo create an account called Computer-Aided Geronimoo, or Computer-Aided theory, etc., and then people can choose whether or not they want to play against that. Some people may be happy playing against an AI, or cyborg.

If Deep Blue beats someone in a game of chess, you can't claim that as a victory for yourself, that's madness. It's the same if Deep Blue just makes a few moves for you.

[jonts26]

Oh ok. Now it makes sense. Thanks.

Also the fork comment makes more sense now, too. Man, this thread was confusing me.

[rrenaud]

I'd say the worst thing you could do on iso is consistently make moves that take close to but not quite the move time limit.

I'd personally love to see human/machine combos owning humans on iso (and I'd even more love to see machines owning humans).

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

[Fabian]

To me, this is computer aided playing, which is not cool (unless properly announced etc, like Donald mentions) in pretty much any sport/game where computer can do things humans can't. I'd be reasonably disappointed to hear something like that was used against me, and in a tournament setting, it's imo outright cheating.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

[ackack]

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

I agree. The solution is to do what Donald said: clearly label any account that does this as a computer. People using high quality games playing programs as an aid to their own unlabeled account, however, seems about as far from awesome as you can get.

Kudos to Geronimoo for bringing it up. I'm sure he sincerely thought this was okay (although he does recognize it's enough of an issue to bring it up in the first place.)

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

I know! It's just like people who think they should spank their children having a problem with aggravated assault.

I didn't use a point counter before one was officially instituted in the interface. As a rule, external aids that haven't been explicitly ratified by the community strike me as problematic. But I don't think that's anywhere close to the same league as this. added: Among other things, in the era when I've been playing on isotropic, most of the client-side point counters explicitly announced their presence and allowed both players to access the information. Both that symmetry and the counting issue being somewhat more on the periphery of the game change things up quite a bit.

[olneyce]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think it's totally understandable that many people do. If an opponent asked if I minded, I'd say go ahead.

I think it's important that simulators aren't perfect (or close to it). There is a lot of skill still required to figure out what to feed in, and what to do with the results.

[chwhite]

If my opponent was running the simulator before games to optimize buys and strategy for that board, then I would have a lot less respect for them.  If they did that in a tournament, there is no question that should be considered cheating.

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

The point counter is not as bad, but I do have a mild preference for non-point counter games, and don't play with it unless my opponent says so.  (The old third-party counters that you couldn't access and/or shut off did bother me much more.)

[ftl]

I'd personally love to see human/machine combos owning humans on iso (and I'd even more love to see machines owning humans).

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

Agreed, on both counts. AIs are awesome.

They're hard, though. Especially for Dominion.

[Davio]

If people resort to actively using the simulator to play a GAME against other people, I'd say it's their loss, not mine.

[tlloyd]

I won't go so far as to call it cheating (I'm one of those people who doesn't call the point-tracker cheating despite never using it), but I do call it cowardly and, to be blunt, rather pathetic.

No offense to any particular persons intended, but a top player shouldn't need to do this. I mean what is the point of playing random sets if one of the players does a few million practice rounds before the game starts?

Btw, I do appreciate that Geronimoo admitted this himself, because the secrecy is the worst part.

[theory]

To clarify, I don't run simulations before games either.  I just think this raises very interesting questions of ethics.  It's unquestionably true that using a machine in chess to pick your moves is cheating.  But isn't there some recognition for the fact that simulators are dealing with incomplete, inaccurate generalities that don't necessarily apply to the particulars of the situation.  Neither rspeer's nor Geronimoo's simulators are actually capable of simulating entire games and boards.

[Octo]

It's in the same bag as the point-counter for me:  variant if you agree to it, cheating if you don't.

I was about to bring exactly this example up in the last point-counter thread, but it got locked as I was posting. It always comes back to the real game with me - would I do this if playing face-to-face? Of course not. Being un-seen by the opponent is no excuse for cheating. Whatever it is, it's not how the game was meant to played, that much is for sure. Online gaming has produced some interesting side-effects, to the point where the "spirit of the game" is no longer relevant, and the absence of a referee means there's no room for on-the-spot judgements of foul play, so all rules have to be black and white without exceptions, and everything not covered tends to be fair game.

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

Yup.

[Geronimoo]

  I didn't expect this kind of reaction. Maybe I should clarify: I always take a minute to read the board, but it's impossible to construct proper buy rules and simulate a complete strategy in that amount of time. The only thing I can do very quickly is see if one card beats another card like Jack beats Mine in a Colony game with a $5/$2 opening, BUT that doesn't take into account the other 8 cards on the board while their impact may be huge. And I think in the 1000 games I've played I've done it max 5 times.

People who don't want to play against me anymore because of this feels like Phil Ivey not wanting to play against Daniel Negreanu if he brings along a pocket computer to calculate the odds. That's just silly.

High level Dominion games can't be simulated in under a minute, but if people have a problem with this, I promise to not use it anymore pre-game. I'm all for fair-play!

[Fabian]

"People who don't want to play against me anymore because of this feels like Phil Ivey not wanting to play against Daniel Negreanu if he brings along a pocket computer to calculate the odds. That's just silly. "

This is just silly.

[ackack]

I just think this raises very interesting questions of ethics.  It's unquestionably true that using a machine in chess to pick your moves is cheating.  But isn't there some recognition for the fact that simulators are dealing with incomplete, inaccurate generalities that don't necessarily apply to the particulars of the situation.

Continuing the chess analogy, I don't think most opponents would look very kindly on it if you cracked open a book on a particular opening to read about thematic ideas in the middle of a game, even if the particular line you used didn't turn up. That the information gained in this way is less complete just makes it an issue of scale.

[tlloyd]

Geronimoo - I'm not calling into question your motives or fairness or integrity, etc. But I do think what you did (all five times!! ) gave you an unfair advantage. It doesn't guarantee that you'll win, but it makes the set a lot less random for you. To a certain extent this is similar to proposing pre-arranged kingdoms with which you are familiar to unsuspecting people on isotropic.

I don't personally like turning games into number-crunching exercises, but lots of people disagree. But do the simulating before or after - not during the game itself.

Theory - I get your point and agree to a certain extent. But imagine I could freeze time at the beginning of a game, come onto this forum and start a thread to get everyone's input on a particular combo or ask advice on the opening (info that my time-frozen opponent won't have). I don't call it cheating, but it seems unfair and thus bad form.