I really think it's not a black and white issue, and context is important.

For all of you asking where to draw the line, which things are *really* cheating, ask yourself the following question: If I were a top player playing an official game in a major tournament with significant prize money, would the referee consider this behaviour cheating?

If the answer is yes, then your behaviour is, in that context, cheating.

Now ask yourself: If I were playing a casual friendly match with a close friend, would they consider this cheating?

If the answer is no, then your behaviour is, in that context, not cheating.

The examples mentioned here, looking up joseki or playing out sequences, would definitely be considered cheating in official matches. But probably plenty of your online opponents are fine with them. So they are a bit of a grey area.

Personally, I avoid that grey area, but in casual play I won't mind if my opponents go there. I also wouldn't mind if they consulted a stronger player. In a casual game, anything that increases their enjoyment of the game is fine by me.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if my opponent cheated (I don't play tournaments, though, there I might ) because that's his business. Sure, I'll lose, but I'm playing someone a lot stronger so I hope to learn from it. The only downside in that case is that you might feel bad because you got outclassed by a "weaker" player if his rating is lower than yours. But even then I would suspect a sandbagger so I wouldn't feel that bad after all.

y
This is an interesting thought. You can think about the moves that you yourself would make, and try and make sense of why Leela plays the way it does. Because you have to be actively playing out the moves, inputting your opponents moves, I can imagine that it could have some positive effect on skill. Whether that time would be better spent playing your own games, reviewing your own games, solving problems, playing through pro games etc., who knows? It would still be an interesting experiment

When I bought crazy stone three years ago (what a huge waste of money by the way - I was not smart enough to predict the impact of deep learning on go), I made a KGS account to test the strengh of the program at Level 7 and Level 8. Of course I manually relayed the moves without telling my opponents that I was playing for a bot. I wanted to know exactly what level of an opponent I would be training with, and testing it on KGS is the only way to answer the question. I'm not sure if I cheated but I did make my opponents participants in an experiment without their consent...

In the very early days of Leela Zero I did the same thing, only I was manually relaying moves of (at the time) a glorified random number generator (and lost many many games to IdiotBot!)


On an unrelated note, why do people still check josekipedia or joseki dictionaries? Haven't go AI's already showed that our understanding of the opening is deeply flawed, and what we accepted as joseki's are likely not even "joseki's" in the traditional interpretation of the word?

I use josekipedia from time to time in my turn-based games on OGS/DGS

i'm surprised by how people don't seem to consider using a joseki dictionary to be cheating. when i play an opponent, even a casual game online, i'm assuming that the moves are coming from their head.

i guess herman has it right when he says that it depends on context. but i never thought of a tournament game and a casual game on kgs that different in terms of "what is cheating" - to me, it was always just a difference in how serious i was about trying to win a game. some people here say that even using a bot isn't cheating in an online game.

so if using a bot isn't cheating, and using a joseki dictionary isn't cheating, then what type of behavior *would* be considered cheating? whatever fits within the TOS is free territory?

_________________
be immersed

RIght now it seems to be generally accepted that people no longer have to do routine arithmetic, using a calculator such as is built into cell phones is common. Even advanced engineering type math is now done by programs like Mathematica or Maple. I can imagine that in the not too distant future it will be possible, even common, to have AI brain assists implanted on human bodies. If that happens then things like "thinking" games (go, chess, etc.) will often be played in a hybrid way. From my perspective that sort of thing is not significantly different from watching pros play now; we could get a lot of pleasure from it. But it isn't playing go as we know it now.

Come on ! Using assistance while playing go is like using a car to win a 100-metres race.

Maybe I'm just inventing this distinction to justify my own habits, but I draw a strong line between what's allowable in real-time (F2F or KGS for example) vs. long-term (like DGS) playing.

In real time, it is just you and me. No aids allowed at all since we are both committing the time and place to play out a game with each other. We bring what we have inside ourselves to the table and that is it. My position on long-term on the other hand developed over time. Back when I was studying hard, I could come across some text or playout that was very similar to something going on in an active DGS game. If I just learned something good, should I not do it since I didn't know it at the start of the game? So this lead to me feeling "directed study" during a game was OK and then generalized it to all reference materials (and play aids outside of other people directly) were fair game during a week or month long game.

I think the key is to be explicit in what's allowable outside of F2F play where I've only been offered the use of play aids once (as opposed to a handicap) and I think everyone expects it to be you and just you. Even though DGS has stated their policy I still added it to my bio that I'll use references during play. But I'd still be annoyed if I found out a KGS opponent was flipping through books or web pages or even just doing variations in another window much less running a program and aping moves.

Again, the above could be why 98% of my online play is on DGS so I might just be self-justifying, but that's my current perspective.

_________________
Currently reading: Plutarch, Cerebus, and D&Q 25th Anniversary

Another aspect for real-life play, is it cheating to wander around and look at other boards? I do this a lot; I get restless and find it interesting to watch other games, but maybe I would win more and get in time trouble less (I don't wonder on my time, but could use opponent's time to read/plan more) if I focused more on my game. I think it's not cheating. But what if you then use the information from other games to help you in yours? I think that would be. I don't think I've done this consciously, but it would be hard to police, though it seems somewhat plausible. For example at the Amsterdam tournament this last weekend I considered playing a new joseki variant but ended up playing the old one, not because I couldn't remember the new mainline but was unsure how to continue in some branches if my opponent deviated, and then when I went for a wander I saw one of the top boards playing the new line so although that wouldn't have helped me as I had remembered that line (and wouldn't help with the branches) it would have been a big help if I'd forgotten it, and could have provided some reassurance. Or another potential situation, imagine you've got somewhat common shape like a carpenter's square and forgot the usual continuation, and another board had it too and in your wander you saw the 2-1 attachment sequence as a nice reminder of how to make the ko.

There's a famous chess story along these lines:

A more detailed recounting of the same incident is here.

No, an emphatic no. If it's allowed in chess, then it's fine.

EGF General Tournament Rules, Chapter 3, Section 2, Rule 4:

On first sight I believed that this rule meant that in a game between A and B, A may not wander off, find a spare board, and use it to play out and analyse a particular line.

It seems though that this is not the case. The rule does actually mean that they should not watch a game on another board. I wonder how many people in each tournament could be penalized due to their flaunting this rule.

Of course, just because a rule is official, does not mean that it is accepted as being official by the officials.

_________________
North Lecale

I do think this is actually the correct interpretation.

My first reaction was an emphatic "No!" And I do have a kind of love for the purity of the game that would make that so. I would never consult a joseki dictionary during an online game, or play out sequences on a real board in an online game, or play out sequences on a tablet during a face to face game. I will not even ask for an undo for a typo ( although I will accept one if it was a misclick and an undo is offered).

But with a little more thought, I wonder if my emphatic response is appropriate. In my younger days I did resort to some gamesmanship that many, many folks would not approve of. I would still argue that head fakes, misleading signs and hopeful frowns are not cheating, but they are questionable enough to not be holier than thou.

However, on another return to this thread I finally found where I certainly have crossed the line, at least as an accomplice. I have a dear friend who has had health issues and, as a result, his game has dipped. His energy for the game is limited, and when I visit it is tough for him to play endless games like we used to. However, playing online is easier for him. He loves to play a game with my live advice and enjoys himself immensely and perhaps learns something. Obviously, doing this in a rated game (at least I think they were rated) without the opponent's knowledge is cheating, certainly by my friend, but also by me.

the black and white path
obscured by years, friendly guide -
questionable trip

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

If I remember my anecdote correctly, there was this tournament in Finland where two kyu players decided to effectively play Vesa and Matti against each other. Hence, this rule making it illegal to look at the other games.

_________________
North Lecale

Interesting thing I thought I recalled so I had to go back and confirm: For those of you who've watched Hikaru No Go, in the 5th episode - the first high school tournament that Hikaru is roped into playing in his teammate plays with a joseki book in his hand (as in holds it open in his hand during the game). When berated for it this he says it isn't against the rules, but his teammate is only berating him for using it as a crutch (not a rules violation).

Anyway, I often used to look up joseki and fuseki patterns when I started out. Figuring I'd rather learn there and then instead of doing something wrong then looking that up later. Now I only do it after a game to see if I screwed something up if something felt off about a corner sequence - did use the AlphaGo Tool a bit to help memorize some lines though - I did the same thing when learning chess, it just feels like the most efficient way for me to learn. Another factor in me doing it less now is that I'm a lot less serious about the game and so learning is not as much a priority when playing anymore.

I think there are a couple of elements of the Hikaru no Go case, which may not hold in all situations:
* Apparently, for that tournament, joseki books were explicitly allowed - not the case for all tournaments.
* Online, it's my assumption that my opponent isn't using additional resources. Likewise, if I use a joseki book, I don't expect my opponent to know about it. I consider that cheating. If it's allowed by the server, and I tell my opponent I'm using a book, then maybe it's not cheating anymore.

_________________
be immersed

That might well be, though at least the anime doesn't explicitly say books are allowed so I think I just generalized it (but yeh, that would be odd if that were the case heh).

I guess I've never thought much about it or assumed anything about my opponent in regards to joseki dictionaries, when they play out joseki they just do that - if they needed help to do so well, that's not something I think about.

But yeah, in a serious game then I'd probably be a bit annoyed if my opponent looked up the answer to something I'd prepared (say a more complicated or unusual variation. Like online I often play the side attachment as a follow up on the 4-4 low approach -> keima -> slide joseki to good result because people just don't know about it or what to do - but I don't play it assuming they'll mess up unless it's a handicap game)