Originally posted by stockenYou're still showing a complete misunderstanding for chess and database use.
I am, after all, repeating other players games like a mindless mimic? But more importantly, isn't it rather boring doing that?
Even if I do use the database as a tool for ideas, but then figure my moves out on my own, I get valuable help that I wouldn't get otherwise.
already databases with plenty of information (if not as extensive as what I've descri ...[text shortened]... to appear to be a better player than I actually am. Assuming I know how to use them. Right?
If you use the databases available, which would maybe equate to 4 million games, you'd still be very lucky to get to move 10-15 in database. Now, you seem to assume that if you use a database to get to move 15, then you are in a superior position to that you may have reached without using a database. What if you had followed a line which relied on a sac on move 10, but your opponent went off database on move 9? What if you followed a database which led you to a position which required a certain sequence of moves to occur (for example the classic bishop sacrifice from The Art of Attack in Chess) for it to be a good position, but you hadn't read the Art of Attack in Chess. You'd be left in a position in which you hadn't a clue what to do. Your own personal chess prowess would be required to progress. Otherwise you'd be obliterated. If you weren't good at chess, your uneducated database use would leave you in a position in which you hadn't a clue what your aims were. You'd be foobared.
I'm willing to play a game against the members of the non-database syndicate, allowing them full use of dbs and providing links to all the dbs that I know, and I guarantee that they will probably end up at a disadvantage if they follow the db to my novelty, due to the fact that they haven't a clue about the science of db usage, and will more than likely end up in a position which they wouldn't naturally end up in.
D
Originally posted by Dr StrangelovePlease learn notation. Otherwise what you are posting is the same as me calling this english...
I wasn't really indicating any specific piece being moved - simply the absurdity of counting all possible moves as possible real moves a player would make.
asdasdasd asgergteg dfgfjgfjfertjlk ggtregrthtmjhjmsdfdgf adfgdfhwry dfgr
D
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOk, please tell me how a1-a2-a3-a4-a5 wasn't specifying a piece to be moved, seeing as a knight is prefixed N, a bishop B, a rook R, a queen Q and a king K. The only pieces not to be prefixed are pawns, so what you are saying with your notation is pawn to a1 (impossible if followed by the sequence given), pawn to a2 (impossible in the sequence given), etc.
Please learn manners...
D
How can anyone possibly estimate with a straight face the number of atoms in the Universe when we aren't even sure how big the Universe is? How many atoms are contained in space? In a single molecule? And then to say a chess game compares to that. Do you mind if I am having some mathematical scepticism.
Originally posted by cashthetrashTalk about missing the point.
How can anyone possibly estimate with a straight face the number of atoms in the Universe when we aren't even sure how big the Universe is? How many atoms are contained in space? In a single molecule? And then to say a chess game compares to that. Do you mind if I am having some mathematical scepticism.
Originally posted by RagnorakIf you can't work out what that is referring to, irrespective of EXACT notation maybe you really do need some database 'assistance'.
Ok, please tell me how a1-a2-a3-a4-a5 wasn't specifying a piece to be moved, seeing as a knight is prefixed N, a bishop B, a rook R, a queen Q and a king K. The only pieces not to be prefixed are pawns, so what you are saying with your notation is pawn to a1 (impossible if followed by the sequence given), pawn to a2 (impossible in the sequence given), etc.
D
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAre you implying that I should be a mind-reader?
If you can't work out what that is referring to, irrespective of EXACT notation maybe you really do need some database 'assistance'.
"a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession would never be considered in a real game."
"Why is that illegal pray tell? Stupid maybe but not illegal. "
What is "a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession" referring to?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakZ😴😴😴
Are you implying that I should be a mind-reader?
"a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession would never be considered in a real game."
"Why is that illegal pray tell? Stupid maybe but not illegal. "
What is "a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession" referring to?
D