If this were a debate club, it would be clear who had the stronger side of the argument. However, sometimes it is constructive to try to assemble a charitable version of the opposing argument. If we go back to the original post by NBT that led to this digression it might be restated as cautioning against finding oneself in a situation where a rule had been technically violated even though the action taken was entirely unrelated with the concern that motivated the rule in the first place.
An imperfect example would be where Wesley So was penalized for writing himself encouraging notes on his time card during a game. No one thought he was cheating and motivational notes were not the original target of the rule but he was still penalized as he had violated the letter and not the spirit.
The two cases are not equatable and for all the reasons stated and about a dozen that were not, I don't think NBT's concern has much ground, but we might find sympathy with the initial sentiment that motivated the ensuing discussion. Sometimes precise rules, strictly applied, have unintended consequences (just not in this case.)
For a similar reason, I would join Phillip in cautioning the original poster on drawing quick conclusions based on overly simplistic generalizations (like time per move) and instead invest some time in understanding how some of the more sophisticated analytical tools work to detect cheating.
"However, sometimes it is constructive to try to assemble a charitable version of the opposing argument."
Indeed, although that tends to work better IRL with a small discussion than online with a large discussion on a sensitive issue (cheating).
(Wesley's opponent reported his rule violation, so obviously the opponent thought Wesley cheated, perhaps unintentionally. Arguing about the spirit of a rule is useful when changing the rules, either to make a one-time exception or to make a larger change.)
I agree:
"I would join Phillip in cautioning the original poster on drawing quick conclusions..."
@Toadofsky wrote:
IMO changing rule 1 "anything" to "any form of assistance" would sufficiently disambiguate, and that's even compatible with the label applied to cheaters ("uses computer assistance")!
Excellent. How about presenting this to Staff? A simple word change. Lichess requires the occasional updating of policies. A few policies as currently written were made years ago. Times change. Chess policies require updated interpretations. Of course such rules need to be wide-ranging, allowing for interpretation, but the current rule is simply poorly worded.
#33 Yeah... I tried presenting this (although this isn't my first suggestion and they're probably tired of hearing about rule 1). Even simple word changes can have unintended consequences.
The best chance of getting a change enacted would be to make staff part of this design process, although since they're too busy making Lichess excellent to publicly discuss rule change ideas, progress may be slower than USA criminal justice reform.
The wording is so poor that even doing tactics training on lichess would be considered cheating by the letter of the rule (it would make you a better player, giving you an advantage over your opponent).
The rule needs to be broad allowing for interpretation. Similar to Fide's guidelines for arbiters to use their best judgement, based on previous experience and training, to deal with individual cases. Every "example" can not be listed of what is considered "cheating" at online chess. List more than the obvious computer assistance opens a can of worms.
That being said, the "wording" was from years past, in the days of lichess start-up. It clearly is archaic, and needs to be reworded and adapt to current conditions.
I disagree in one respect:
"List more than the obvious computer assistance opens a can of worms."
Here I think is an all-encompassing list (I don't see what's wrong with it):
* using any form of assistance
Is a speech-recognition software for blind users assistance? Are dots that show legal moves of pieces you've clicked assistance? Is a red halo around the king when he's in check assistance? Is calling the flag automatically when time is up assistance? Is auto-drawing three-fold repetition assistance? Is the ability to draw markers on your board mid-game to aid in calculation/visualization assistance?
It's not nearly enough. There's no reason to take the easy way out here. Be concise, but crystal clear. There's no reason other than laziness not to.
Actually, you're correct, "non-supplementary assistance" would be better (for accessibility reasons):
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assistance1. to give usually supplementary support or aid to
2. the act of helping or assisting someone or the help supplied
3. aid financial and technical assistance
Yes, Lichess drawing dots for legal move destinations is assistance; likewise for Lichess drawing the red halo assisting the player. (I'd argue that for simplicity's sake, these should not be present in rated games.)
(Lichess auto-drawing on threefold repetition does not gain an advantage, although it is a form of assistance.)
Manually drawing markers on your board is merely a visual aid, although Lichess does assist the player in cleanly drawing them. But you're right, if Lichess assisting with drawing the markers is advantageous then "any form of assistance" is still too vague.
The wording can be stipulated as "assisting in the selection of a chess move". This includes computer assistance or human assistance in the form of suggesting moves to be played.
The key is assistance in "selecting a move" and not hardware used, visual aids or assistance that the disabled or disadvantaged may require.
It should be quite simple to distinguish what constitutes outside help to either make or select a chess move. The wording should not prove overly difficult and would eliminate the current confusion over the term "anything".
