This has come up before (on reddit) and I was belittled and down-voted for saying it is cheating. Mostly because it was the chessbrah(s) team doing it, and their fans are pretty stupid a lot of the time. But it is inarguably against the rules and the spirit of the game of chess. The account should be marked in some way at minimum.
I think Lichess breaking their own rules and allowing what they define as cheating for special people is not nice and whether it's streamed or has educational value is not relevant.
Just a bad precedent. Restrict them to casual games or something.
Just a bad precedent. Restrict them to casual games or something.
I happened to be watching the stream live for quite some time. Asaf Givon's suggestions and input had just about zero impact on the moves actually being played.
It was more like a masterclass where Tal Baron was playing his own moves and teaching Givon. While spectators got a free insight in the GM's way of thinking.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Tal Baron been playing alone he would most certainly have been playing even faster and stronger.
No way this is/was cheating.
It was more like a masterclass where Tal Baron was playing his own moves and teaching Givon. While spectators got a free insight in the GM's way of thinking.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Tal Baron been playing alone he would most certainly have been playing even faster and stronger.
No way this is/was cheating.
It is absolutely not relevant whether the suggestions had zero impact nor whether Tal Baron would have won playing alone. That is not what defines whether or not it is cheating.
You are NOT ALLOWED to have any assistance from another player during a game. This is explicitly in the rules.
It's a matter of trust. I don't feel as comfortable investing all of my energy in a game of chess now that I know players can/are just asking for help from whomever they choose. I'm not playing a team, I'm playing a player.
It's especially galling because of all the effort I go through when playing correspondence games, standard games with a coach watching, or games my students are playing and I'm watching to avoid me or my student getting assistance while the game is going. Watching others just casually disregard that rule with no respect for their opponent at all is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard, and it destroys the trust I have in the site to protect me and other players when they defend it and others on here excuse it.
You are NOT ALLOWED to have any assistance from another player during a game. This is explicitly in the rules.
It's a matter of trust. I don't feel as comfortable investing all of my energy in a game of chess now that I know players can/are just asking for help from whomever they choose. I'm not playing a team, I'm playing a player.
It's especially galling because of all the effort I go through when playing correspondence games, standard games with a coach watching, or games my students are playing and I'm watching to avoid me or my student getting assistance while the game is going. Watching others just casually disregard that rule with no respect for their opponent at all is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard, and it destroys the trust I have in the site to protect me and other players when they defend it and others on here excuse it.
Kingscrusher should be granted the first place in this case, as the current winner is a team of people!
@ those complaining
A GM streaming and basically providing lessons FOR FREE for everybody to follow is infinitely more valuable than some placement in some completely unimportant online tournament.
At the end of the day, I guarantee you, GM Tal Baron couldn't care less about these tournaments. There is no personal gain for him whatsoever from doing this and he is doing a very good thing here with his Chessjuice GM-team.
We should be very happy they are doing this. Let's try not to discourage them.
Also, if possible, try to see the bigger picture.
A GM streaming and basically providing lessons FOR FREE for everybody to follow is infinitely more valuable than some placement in some completely unimportant online tournament.
At the end of the day, I guarantee you, GM Tal Baron couldn't care less about these tournaments. There is no personal gain for him whatsoever from doing this and he is doing a very good thing here with his Chessjuice GM-team.
We should be very happy they are doing this. Let's try not to discourage them.
Also, if possible, try to see the bigger picture.
This is cheating, and it is embarrassing IMHO. The educational purpose is very little, a GM can do commentary good enough by himself i suppose, so this practice should be denied. Its simple not fair. Cheers!!!
We do see the bigger picture. I think there is a bigger picture that you aren't seeing, and that all of this should be done within the rules. The thing is that it can easily be done within the rules. Simply make a special type of consultation account that is clearly marked. No problem.
What you place value on is not the same thing as what others place value on. The idea that you don't care about the online tournament does not mean that KC didn't put all his effort into it. People have to care about their chess games to put their maximum effort into it. And if you don't put maximum effort into your games, you won't improve.
It is also not relevant whether Tal Baron cares about this tournament. I agree his wanting to provide this type of thing is a great thing, and I highly encourage it. No one is more supportive than me. That does NOT mean he should get to just ignore rules to do it.
I'm sure he would agree with that. And if he wouldn't, he's wrong.
It's as simple as that.
What you place value on is not the same thing as what others place value on. The idea that you don't care about the online tournament does not mean that KC didn't put all his effort into it. People have to care about their chess games to put their maximum effort into it. And if you don't put maximum effort into your games, you won't improve.
It is also not relevant whether Tal Baron cares about this tournament. I agree his wanting to provide this type of thing is a great thing, and I highly encourage it. No one is more supportive than me. That does NOT mean he should get to just ignore rules to do it.
I'm sure he would agree with that. And if he wouldn't, he's wrong.
It's as simple as that.
hi
Yes, a GM streaming and providing lessons for free is nice. But in this case the GM was clearly consulting with the IM during points in the tournament and the IM actually said some things that affected the GM's play in the position. I didn't watch much of the stream but here are two specific points where consultation was clear:
www.twitch.tv/chessjuice/v/98800246
1:47:17 - The IM says "Maybe you should think how to prevent Nc6...Maybe Qa4" which the GM eventually agrees with and plays
1:48:40 - The GM says "If I move the knight then after he develops Nc6 then Rxe6 is winning" but the IM corrects him and says that "your bishop on f4 would be hanging at the end of the variation" to which the GM says "oh you're right. So Nd3 maybe"
Now obviously these two examples of consultation are not game-changing and even if the IM wasn't present talking to the GM then the GM would probably have found these moves/ideas on his own anyways. But the main point is that consultation with a friend, engine or opening database is against lichess.org ToS and if Thibault is fine with granting permission to specific people to work with another player during a rated tournament then the ToS needs to at least be re-written for that specific rule.
Also, why was consultation allowed when we have no clue if the consulted player may have potentially used Stockfish computer lines? What if the IM had started to spout off Stockfish's top recommendation in a bunch of different positions? I know that didn't happen in this specific case, but technically the IM could have done this since the duo had already been granted permission to consult together and there would have been no way for anyone to know if the IM was using Stockfish on the side. It could have just been claimed that the moves were found through "consultation".
Finally, is this privilege only going to be granted to titled players? Hypothetically, what if a 1800 wanted to stream and consult with his master-level friend during a tournament? Wouldn't that be nice instructional material as well? Is this rule only in place if the higher rated player is the one making the moves and receiving consultation from a lower-rated player? What if two GMs wanted to consult during a online tournament and win every online tournament in existence? Would that be allowed?
www.twitch.tv/chessjuice/v/98800246
1:47:17 - The IM says "Maybe you should think how to prevent Nc6...Maybe Qa4" which the GM eventually agrees with and plays
1:48:40 - The GM says "If I move the knight then after he develops Nc6 then Rxe6 is winning" but the IM corrects him and says that "your bishop on f4 would be hanging at the end of the variation" to which the GM says "oh you're right. So Nd3 maybe"
Now obviously these two examples of consultation are not game-changing and even if the IM wasn't present talking to the GM then the GM would probably have found these moves/ideas on his own anyways. But the main point is that consultation with a friend, engine or opening database is against lichess.org ToS and if Thibault is fine with granting permission to specific people to work with another player during a rated tournament then the ToS needs to at least be re-written for that specific rule.
Also, why was consultation allowed when we have no clue if the consulted player may have potentially used Stockfish computer lines? What if the IM had started to spout off Stockfish's top recommendation in a bunch of different positions? I know that didn't happen in this specific case, but technically the IM could have done this since the duo had already been granted permission to consult together and there would have been no way for anyone to know if the IM was using Stockfish on the side. It could have just been claimed that the moves were found through "consultation".
Finally, is this privilege only going to be granted to titled players? Hypothetically, what if a 1800 wanted to stream and consult with his master-level friend during a tournament? Wouldn't that be nice instructional material as well? Is this rule only in place if the higher rated player is the one making the moves and receiving consultation from a lower-rated player? What if two GMs wanted to consult during a online tournament and win every online tournament in existence? Would that be allowed?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.