Ethics of Postal Chess

Dear Jim:

When one sits down to play an over-the-board game, one assumes that the contest is man against man. And one should assume the same in a postal game. Right?

Wrong! Now, with the advent of strong commercially available computers (at a reasonable cost, too), many chessplayers are probably using the machines to help them select moves in their postal games.

More than a year ago*, Alex Dunne, who directs the USCF postal chess tournaments, wrote about the possible emergence of what he termed the "computer junkie". This individual would be "hooked" so much to his computer's suggestions that he would have, in effect, a machine playing his games against humans. A few thoughts on this:

1) How could such cheating be proven?

2) How would one know if this were being done to him?

3) Why would one even do this?

4) Is it so smart to trust blindly the computer to make better moves automatically than you could, on your own?

To question number one, the answer is obvious: you can't.

The answer to question number two is almost as obvious: you could suspect that this was being done to you, if your opponent's over-the-board rating were very low and you were an above-average player being blown away in both postal games, and if your opponent was very active and still retained his low rating. But such players did exist before computers came on the scene. One could suspect that they may have consulted with strong players or had good opening books and could play half-decent middlegames. But suspicion is not proof.

In answer to question three, I can only suspect that some individuals are so frustrated in their own egos that they must win at all costs.

To question number four, my feeling is this: should one blindly trust an opening book or someone else's analysis to prepare for an over-the-board game or a postal game? Not really. There could be holes in the analysis or typographical errors. And we all know the stupidity of mere memorization. And what is to say that a computer program could not be in error or have a malfunction of some electronical nature?

The way I see it, if one uses a computer to help analyze postal games, is he in effect consulting with a "mechanical man" or is he using an "electronic book"? One using a computer to do his extensive analysis before even attempting a postal tournament is, in essence, making his "book". It seems that has to decide this issue in one's own conscience.

The objections to the use of computers in postal chess reminds me of the objections they used to have about adjournments: people using a team of seconds to help analyze. Some still find this practice abhorrent. Yet it is done on the highest levels, especially in team tournaments. But the talk about this is quiet. Now it has been accepted as part of chess competition. So I think it will be with the issue of computers being used in postal chess.

I would welcome the opinions of other chessplayers on this controversy.

John Hagerty
President, West Orange Chess Club

* * * * * * * * * * *

You'll get one chessplayer's opinion right now. Anyone who relies on a computer to do his postal chess analysis is not cheating his opponent so much as he is cheating himself.

It is analogous to a college student paying someone to write his term paper for him. Why bother going to school in the first place? All you are learning is how to cut corners. At some point down the road, your having cheated yourself out of an education will come back to haunt you.

So why not play postal chess by "remote control": MCO for the opening, home computer on overnight "deep search" for the middlegame, and Reuben Fine for the ending? What practical value is a chessplayer (if indeed that is the word) deriving from postal chess of this nature?

My answer is: none whatsoever. And this is why, after one round of postal competition in the early 1970's, I gave it up. It is not so much a question of ethics as it is one of common sense.

Boris Spassky once wrote: "Over the board, in complete concentration, I saw significantly more than under comfortable home conditions. I never trusted my home analysis, but always believed in it over the board, during the game."

That has always been my objection to postal chess, even before the arrival of computers: the lack of personal warmth, if you will. Only in the "arena", confronted by a real live opponent, does one experience the "moment of truth", and truth is ultimately what chess is about. The computers have only exacerbated the problem.

Jim West
National Master

* * * * * * * * * * *

Let us not debate the merits of postal play. It fills a void for those who love the game and, by circumstance, can not play over the board. It fills a void for those who do not feel comfortable playing under the iron hands of a chess clock.

Different strokes for different folks.

Perhaps, as the question is asked more and more, postal players will find a solution similar to what is done in checkers competitions. The opening moves are pre-selected. Play begins on move ten, for example.

What bothers me, John, is your belief that the use of seconds has been condoned. There is nothing in the FIDE rules which suggests this.

They just don't have a forceful way to prevent it, just as there is no way to prevent two players from agreeing to a draw, even before they sit down to play - a hard thing to accept by spectators and sponsors alike.

Perhaps if action chess catches on worldwide, changes will be made in order to ensure the survival of "real" chess. Perhaps, as many have suggested, FIDE will require (over the obvious objections of the strongest players with the greatest state support) that all games be concluded on the same day.

Perhaps then chess will become a contest between two opponents.

Glenn A. Petersen
Editor, Atlantic Chess News

*{In light of recent allegations that grandmasters have received computer assistance in over-the-board competitions, this article is even more timely today than when it originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1989}