Using an engine in arena

[Andrei3009]

Even if the algorithm is based entirely on the actions of the person who wrote it, it is performed by a machine that, unlike a human, does not make mistakes. Stability is a very important factor in assessing a player's skill, especially when you can calculate a lot of things in the game.

For example, in Azul, on the last move, all information is open and you can find the optimal move by calculating all possible options and I can do it if I have 5-10 hours. However, with the help of friends, I can write a program that will do this for me. This certainly won't make me an expert, but it will seriously increase the chances of winning some games in which I wouldn't have calculated or just made a mistake.

Agreed, and I expect that such a program would still be against BGA rules.

I merely sought to clarify the distinction between:
Using AI to come up with its own move, which the player then makes, and
Using a database of one's own games to try to figure out the best move. As you noted though - there is a difference between manually researching one's own past games and writing a program that automates the task.

Regarding Azul - on the last move, I'll spend as long as it takes to find the right move
But, yes, it would me only my brain and my calculations being used, and it would take a lot of time.

I still believe the BGA official policy is hazy. I mean, people are encouraged to study and review games played by high-rated players. Many people use "book openings" for chess. Where is the line between cheating and studying?

That is what i think about "line":

Where is the line between cheating and studying?

I played in real life draughts competitions and during the game it was forbidden to use anything except my head. That is, before the game starts, you can learn as many openings as you want and memorize all the games of your opponent (if he is known in advance), but during the game you use only your head. I think it's ideal for real life competitions and almost the same thing should be in all online games. Using a book with openings during a game of checkers (which has a rating) would be cheating, at least in my opinion, but this cannot be moderated in any way.

[Meeplelowda]

Games on BGA are equivalent to correspondence forms of other games, such as chess, checkers, etc., because at the end of the day there is no way to prevent someone from using external tools. It is all based on the honor system. That said, there are still norms for expected behavior even if they can't be enforced. Instead of reinventing the wheel, let's compare how this is handled in competitive (rated) correspondence chess:

3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players. You cannot use computer programs or chess playing algorithms to evaluate a move, but you may use computers for record keeping and databases.

Source: US Chess Federation Correspondence Chess Rules

It is acknowledged in chess that someone can consult a book of openings. But eventually they will have to go "off book" as they say, and once that happens you cannot use computer tools to help you evaluate a novel position. That's where I'd draw the line.

[FrankJones]

Your statement about blackjack cannot possibly be accurate.

Well go ahead and try it then! But maybe google it first: https://www.google.com/search?q=nevada+ ... ter+felony

That link says absolutely nothing about this topic.

It says cheating is illegal. It does not define what is considered "cheating".

Counting cards or using a card-counting strategy is not cheating and is not a crime.

[Mathew5000]

Your statement about blackjack cannot possibly be accurate.

Well go ahead and try it then! But maybe google it first: https://www.google.com/search?q=nevada+ ... ter+felony

That link says absolutely nothing about this topic.

It says cheating is illegal. It does no define what is considered "cheating".

Counting cards or using a card-counting strategy is not cheating and is not a crime.

The Google search I linked to gives you refers to NV Rev Stat § 465.075 which makes it a crime to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, which is designed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino.

Counting cards inside your own head is not a crime, true. But using a device to count cards while playing blackjack in a Las Vegas casino is a felony, as I said.

[FrankJones]

Well go ahead and try it then! But maybe google it first: https://www.google.com/search?q=nevada+ ... ter+felony

That link says absolutely nothing about this topic.

It says cheating is illegal. It does no define what is considered "cheating".

Counting cards or using a card-counting strategy is not cheating and is not a crime.

The Google search I linked to gives you refers to NV Rev Stat § 465.075 which makes it a crime to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, which is designed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino.

Counting cards inside your own head is not a crime, true. But using a device to count cards while playing blackjack in a Las Vegas casino is a felony, as I said.

Fair enough. I did not see any of that in the first link you provided.

What does any of this have to do with BGA rules? Can you show me some BGA policy that says, "We use the LAs Vegas legal code for determine what is allowed or not allowed"?

[FrankJones]

Games on BGA are equivalent to correspondence forms of other games, such as chess, checkers, etc., because at the end of the day there is no way to prevent someone from using external tools. It is all based on the honor system. That said, there are still norms for expected behavior even if they can't be enforced. Instead of reinventing the wheel, let's compare how this is handled in competitive (rated) correspondence chess:

3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players. You cannot use computer programs or chess playing algorithms to evaluate a move, but you may use computers for record keeping and databases.

Source: US Chess Federation Correspondence Chess Rules

It is acknowledged in chess that someone can consult a book of openings. But eventually they will have to go "off book" as they say, and once that happens you cannot use computer tools to help you evaluate a novel position. That's where I'd draw the line.

Exactly.

Studying books or one's own games is acceptable.

[FrankJones]

I played in real life draughts competitions and during the game it was forbidden to use anything except my head. That is, before the game starts, you can learn as many openings as you want and memorize all the games of your opponent (if he is known in advance), but during the game you use only your head. I think it's ideal for real life competitions and almost the same thing should be in all online games. Using a book with openings during a game of checkers (which has a rating) would be cheating, at least in my opinion, but this cannot be moderated in any way.

Real-time live tournaments and turn-based online games are not the same.

Studying a book on openings is within the rules. Studying one's own games is within the rules.

I understand people may have differing opinions on this , but opinions do not supersede accepted and stated rules of BGA policy.

[FrankJones]

As an example, a website I used to play games on many years ago has the following rules regarding this issue:

"Computer Software Assistance: You may not use computer software that tells you the best move to make. There is no prize money at stake in our tournaments, so you have no reason to cheat. However, you may consult reference books or a database of moves."

So, study and research materials, including databased: Allowed.
Using an AI-type program that says which move to make: Not allowed.

[Mathew5000]

Counting cards inside your own head is not a crime, true. But using a device to count cards while playing blackjack in a Las Vegas casino is a felony, as I said.

Fair enough. I did not see any of that in the first link you provided.

What does any of this have to do with BGA rules?

It has to do with your own credibility, Frank. Why should anyone credit your views on a topic, when your instincts are so wrong. Without any knowledge of the matter, you said that what I wrote "cannot possibly be accurate". You could have said you don't know whether or not it's accurate but instead you asserted that there is no chance what I said was true, proceeded to argue back and forth, and when finally conceding the point you said it's irrelevant anyway.

[FrankJones]

Counting cards inside your own head is not a crime, true. But using a device to count cards while playing blackjack in a Las Vegas casino is a felony, as I said.

Fair enough. I did not see any of that in the first link you provided.

What does any of this have to do with BGA rules?

It has to do with your own credibility, Frank. Why should anyone credit your views on a topic, when your instincts are so wrong. Without any knowledge of the matter, you said that what I wrote "cannot possibly be accurate". You could have said you don't know whether or not it's accurate but instead you asserted that there is no chance what I said was true, proceeded to argue back and forth, and when finally conceding the point you said it's irrelevant anyway.

What?

I have played a good amount of blackjack in casinos, and I used to work in one. I am not sure why you are saying I have no knowledge of the matter.

Perhaps you took me too literally. When someone hears something that sounds wrong, it's not uncommon to say, "that cannot possible be right". Meaning, "I don't see how that can possible be right." I'll choose my words more carefully next time. My understanding was that using electronic devices to signal another player is highly illegal, but that it is unclear whether a player can use notes or a pre-defined strategy. I am still not clear based on the link you posted exactly what would constitute an arrestable offense versus merely being kicked out of or banned from a casino.

When exactly did I concede the point? And what point are you saying I conceded? Multiple points have been discussed here. Anything about Vegas or blackjack is tangential to the actual discussion in this thread, which is whether this site allows strategy research when playing games. Also, the first link you provided was different from the second link you provided. You are blasting me for thins I said in response to your first link while seemingly referring to information you posted in the second link.

Regardless, why did you cite your interpretation of Vegas blackjack law in a discussion about BGA rules regarding Azul? As though Vegas casino laws somehow dictate BGA policy?

I am still not clear on this. since I cannot find the official BGA policy. I would like to know, because I would not want to play Azul against someone using AI software, which seems to be what the OP was describing. But if the person is just using a personal database, I am not sur whether that violated BGA rules, so I would not be comfortable reporting that player until I knew more.

I do not think it was necessary for you to take such a harsh and antagonist and insulting tone toward me. Can't we discuss matters respectfully?