|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it seems off-topic but I feel the similarity of the two is striking. I played in UK postal chess leagues for 8 years. When I started there were a list of ethics and good practises everyone was expected to abide by: inform partner if you were on holiday, always write a note saying 'hello' at the start of the game and thanks for the game at the completion of a match etc, etc. Most were commonsense but were unforceable. Chess computers at this stage were very expensive and not at a sufficient standard to trouble a decent player so were not mentioned in the rules. However, the ethics did prohibit you from discussing your games and positions with any other human being. This rule was impossible to actually enforce but it was regarded as a 'gentlemen's agreement' and I believe the vast majority abided by it. Private study from books was allowed.
As computers became advanced and far cheaper the Postal Chess Organisations in the UK made in my humble opinion a disastrous decision. They refused to prohibit the use of chess computers or CD-ROM databases saying it was impossible to enforce. Now for less than 100 UK pounds anyone can buy a chess program capable of playing at near Grandmaster strength to run on a PC. A stand alone Chess Computer of similar strength is around 400 UK pounds. Read the magazines of postal chess clubs and it is very common for people openly admitting to using computers to 'check' their moves. Therefore the only way to stand a chance of winning is to get a computer yourself. I actually read in a book about How to play Correspondence Chess published in 1997 which said 'its now vital to use a computer to assist you with your moves.' I believe a 'gentlemen's agreement' to not use computers would have meant the problem would have been very minimal if it existed at all.
I became so disgusted I quit postal chess completely. I could never see the point of spending a fortune on stamps to play against computers, or worse still entering my computer to play other computers.
Cheating can never be stopped with face-to-face or on-line bridge. Some kind of McCarthy committee is bound to tarnish the innocent while letting the guilty get free. But that does not mean nothing is done. There should be a list of 'rules' promoting good standards which people should be encouraged to accept. There is in face-to-face duplicate club bridge. The only solution is to promote and put pressure on people to play good ethical bridge. This means teaching people to respect the game, their partner and most importantly their opponents. There is no other way. It will not stop cheating or unethical behaviour completely but I believe it will minamilise it better than the alternatives. Unless this is done the future of competitive on-line bridge is in danger. The anything-goes-lobby will almost certainly be happy to play on the new free MS site. Unless OKbridge addresses the concerns of members I doubt whether it will survive with MS offering a free alternative. I have played anything-goes-bridge on the zone before MS took it over. I can't say I enjoyed the experience. But if OKbridge becomes anything-goes then I might as well save myself $100.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Last article |
Bridge menu |
Main index |
Top of article |
Local menu |
Next article |