Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 21:19:03 11/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2004 at 23:18:25, Evgeny Shaposhnikov wrote: >On November 18, 2004 at 20:16:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>No >>If something is allowed it is not cheating. >> >>Saying that using computers is allowed is enough and you do not need to say more >>than it. >> >>I see no reason to mention cheating because the default assumption is that not >>using computers is allowed unless something else was mentioned in the rules(of >>course in tournament between computers not using computers is cheating but when >>you do not say that the tournament is between computers then it is obvious that >>not using computer is allowed). >> >>Uri > >I hope there is no ambiguity here as it's clearly said that cheating in this >particular case is in accordance with the tournament rules. If you think that >the premise for something to be called cheating is that it is not allowed, then >we do not share the same notion of cheating. > Your notion of cheating is in direct contrast to Merriam-Webster's http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cheat " CHEAT, COZEN, DEFRAUD, SWINDLE mean to get something by dishonesty or deception" - SO if there is no deception, there is no cheating. We also just got off topic of Chess and Computers -- so any additional off topic posts are subject to deletion and posters are subject to disciplinary action. You can move the discussion of what you think cheating is to CTF. You are correct, we do not share the same notion of cheating and there is no need for futher elaboration.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.