On the other hand, if I'm playing chess against an cloaked and anonymous adversary, it might as well be the smartest computer on the planet. This is an interpersonal affront, but it's hard for me to gauge what it means in terms of sport. If I'm playing chess against you, across the table, at a coffee shop somewhere, and you are surreptitiously glancing at your contact lens HUD, playing essentially on behalf of an AI, then I guess you are not being very nice or honest to me.

> Consulting a chess engine (unbeatable AI) on your phone when playing chess with someone isn't cheating?Īt some level, there needs to be a dose of reality in this conversation. > Macros that allow you to perform actions that are physically impossible for a human to perform isn't cheating? It seems to me that the moral responsibility here is on the author(s) - they have slighted the player by instructing, via their code, their disconnection from the game at an improper time. > Exploiting a glitch that causes your opponent to disconnect from the game isn't cheating? So yes, I don't think that, in this strict sense of how knowledge translates to cheating, that wall hacks are cheating. I can also imagine other solutions.īut transposing an unrelated theory of mind ('the code of the version I'm playing constitute the rules for you') seems untenable, inorganic, and in arguably insufficient defined in the first place. I can imagine knowledge coming in encrypted 'chunks,' with keys issued only for those chunks within a player's proper domain. It seems that the philosophy here is constrained by the (real or perceived) connectivity issues surrounding the withholding of knowledge other than that which the player is allowed to know. By your logic, wall-hacks (changing the wall texture to be transparent in FPSes) isn't cheating?

Warzone 2100 tech tree