Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Apr '08 20:40
    hi, i was recently reading a thread when the inquirer was trying to ascertain whether it was appropriate to utilise databases of his own games etc. after he had played the games and analysed them with an engine to find improvements etc. this was interesting from a legal point of view but i have no interest in engines/end game databases believing them to contribute nothing to my low level of understanding of this beautiful game, however, my question is very simple, are we permitted to utilise books, before and during a match or would this constitute a third party involvement - kind regards Robert.
  2. 30 Apr '08 20:57
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    really, what a muppet i have been, i assumed that you had to play OTB style on every game!
  3. 30 Apr '08 21:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really, what a muppet i have been, i assumed that you had to play OTB style on every game!
    You have a good rating considering.
  4. 30 Apr '08 21:18
    Originally posted by lausey
    You have a good rating considering.
    thankyou, that's really very kind but at my level I doubt very much if books would make a difference, everyone deviates from the main lines at about move no.2 and then you have to think for yourself anyway!
  5. 01 May '08 02:14
    I don't really understand why books would be ok when engines aren't. Most books, at least for openings are a direct result of engine and man power usage to build optimal results, right?

    It just seems to me that (despite it being correspondence chess) these correspondences make it not you playing the game which seems just unethical.

    I'm sure this argument has been made before and settled, I'm just not sure where.
  6. 01 May '08 02:29
    Originally posted by tamuzi
    I don't really understand why books would be ok when engines aren't. Most books, at least for openings are a direct result of engine and man power usage to build optimal results, right?

    It just seems to me that (despite it being correspondence chess) these correspondences make it not you playing the game which seems just unethical.

    I'm sure this argument has been made before and settled, I'm just not sure where.
    I think much of the reason books were not banned from correspondence back in the day is that everyone new that it would be outright impossible to enforce a ban.
    How in the early days could you possibly prove that a player in one country was using books to aid in a game vs. someone in another country, when a game could last months, even years? How could you prove a line and it's variations were not studied and memorized prior to a game, as opposed to during play? How could anyone be expected (then or now) to not read any chess literature on any topic that might vaguely relate to a current game when CC games can go on for so long?
    I have to assume (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm hardly a chess historian or authority here) that this was a great part of the logic behind it. The computer age definitely threw a wrench into some of the gears though, eh?
  7. 01 May '08 02:40
    Originally posted by tamuzi
    I don't really understand why books would be ok when engines aren't. Most books, at least for openings are a direct result of engine and man power usage to build optimal results, right?

    It just seems to me that (despite it being correspondence chess) these correspondences make it not you playing the game which seems just unethical.

    I'm sure this argument has been made before and settled, I'm just not sure where.
    For openings, I suspect there's not much difference between books and engine use. (Although I suspect some would argue that point.)

    However, beyond the opening, there's a huge difference. For middlegames and endgames, an engine can give you a nearly instant no-thinking-required answer, whereas if you consult a book, you almost always have to learn principles and then apply those principles to the specific board position.

    But the kicker is, it would be a really bad idea to allow engines for opening analysis but not beyond the opening. Because then someone would have to decide where the opening ends and the middlegame begins. And if you can make that decision with 100 percent accuracy (and get everyone to agree with your opinion), then you're a better man than I.
  8. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    01 May '08 08:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    For openings, I suspect there's not much difference between books and engine use. (Although I suspect some would argue that point.)

    However, beyond the opening, there's a huge difference. For middlegames and endgames, an engine can give you a nearly instant no-thinking-required answer, whereas if you consult a book, you almost always have to learn princi ...[text shortened]... t accuracy (and get everyone to agree with your opinion), then you're a better man than I.
    No one can make a decision with 100% accuracy, not even an engine.

    In fact it is possible for even a moderately good player to "out think" and engine in certain positions, this is because it is possible for a human to "think" beyond the engines horizon by focusing on relevant lines only in a complex strategical position (make no mistake it is impossible to out fox an engine on short term tactics [say 6-8 moves, 12-16 ply])

    Openings are a typical area where the use of good books and the application of sound opening principles coupled with decades of GM experience [on what works] can result in a prepared player getting an advantage against an engine (provided the engine is not itself using a comprehensive opening "book" ). You will never out think the engine on opening tactical traps but because an opening lays down the complex strategic principles that are way beyond an engines horizon it is possible with judicious preparation to steer a game into your preferred lines.

    That is the purpose of books and make no mistake when you leave the book / database you need a comprehensive grasp of the ideas involved and how to capitalise and play on as if you don't, not only an engine, but any moderately good human player will destroy you. Use books with care and don't follow them blindly and be prepared not only when you leave the book but when selecting the book lines to play to invest a lot of time and effort to understand what you are doing and why. That way you will improve not only here but OTB if you play there.
  9. 01 May '08 14:28
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    No one can make a decision with 100% accuracy, not even an engine.

    In fact it is possible for even a moderately good player to "out think" and engine in certain positions, this is because it is possible for a human to "think" beyond the engines horizon by focusing on relevant lines only in a complex strategical position (make no mistake it is impossi ...[text shortened]... ou are doing and why. That way you will improve not only here but OTB if you play there.
    this is the most helpful and insightful thinking that i have heard for ages, very succinct and lucid - thanks so much
  10. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    03 May '08 14:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    For openings, I suspect there's not much difference between books and engine use. (Although I suspect some would argue that point.)

    The critical difference is that engines are poor in the opening if they are not using books.


    This argument comes around about twice per year. There is always someone that feels that book use is unethical. Let 'em stagnate. I play continuously and have a library. Chess study is integrated into chess play. As some openings--the French--are part of my repertoire year after year, there in no way that I will not be looking through books and databases that assist in my development of this opening while I am playing it here.

    Once you get that, it becomes fairly simple and straightforward to see why book and database use cannot be prevented (nor should be). Engine use--firing us Fritz while looking at a position in a specific in-progress game--is clearly another matter.
  11. 04 May '08 02:23
    You can learn a lot using books, databases, etc. during play. Like anything else reading and understanding the why's is accelerated with study of this type. It'll make you stronger overtheboard. Of course you can slosh it out just using the old bean, and do pretty good at it. Some of our members don't use books, databases, etc, and are great players. I believe though i don't know for sure that the higher rated players use databases (or books) in general. I wonder who the highest rated player is who doesn't use anything but his brain. Anyhow you have a few jerks who use engines. I have spent a lot of time analyzing games, only to lose them, and found out later my opponent has been tossed out for engine use. If i wanted to play fritz or chessmaster i wouldn't spend the time or money on this site. But the vast majority of players here are honest to a fault and can come up with some darn good moves all on their own.
  12. 04 May '08 03:23
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Once you get that, it becomes fairly simple and straightforward to see why book and database use cannot be prevented (nor should be). Engine use--firing us Fritz while looking at a position in a specific in-progress game--is clearly another matter.[/b]
    Is not looking at opening books with specific lines (both what your oponents do and what the GMs/engine's say your response should be) in a book the same thing as using an engine in position specific parts?
    Sure you will eventually leave the book, but while you are still in the book you are not playing chess.

    I'm not saying books shouldn't be used. I think they should be used for studying and developing, but the use should be after or separate from the game, not actually during the game while you are playing and looking at the various lines that the opening has based on what your opponent on here does. I'm not going to say its unethical, because you have already destroyed the ethos of ethics, but its certainly changes who is playing. If you are going verbatim out of a book for your first 18 moves, are you playing?

    Might as well just start a set game at that point imo.
  13. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    04 May '08 06:39 / 1 edit
    using books (like notes, too) is just a memory aid. not using books would be like not remembering past games. using an engine is having something (or someone) other than you, the player of the game, deciding which move to make (or making recommendations).

    The books are only helpful for main lines. We have set piece tournaments that are rated where several opening moves have already been played. it makes sense. cheating happens when an engine (computer program) analyzes a position "out of book" and recommends a move that a player of a given strength wouldn't find.

    this type of cheating is easy to spot, when it's used as a pattern. it is cheating to use a computer "engine." it isn't cheating to use databases (memory) of past games that have been played.
  14. 04 May '08 07:01
    Originally posted by coquette
    ...The books are only helpful for main lines. We have set piece tournaments that are rated where several opening moves have already been played. it makes sense. cheating happens when an engine (computer program) analyzes a position "out of book" and recommends a move that a player of a given strength wouldn't find...
    I'm not so sure about this.
    http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8167/1000687ka1.jpg

    Half of my opening books blatantly state that Fritz or Shredder has been used in analysis.
    Many of the books also deal with deviations in the opening - not just main lines. This is because they are specialist books & many of the openings I use are, if not obscure, then less than common. They are also very sharp openings with many forcing lines & the best books - like those in the photo above - give a context for what is correct play & what is inaccurate & more importantly why!
  15. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    04 May '08 09:31
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    I'm not so sure about this.
    http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8167/1000687ka1.jpg

    Half of my opening books blatantly state that Fritz or Shredder has been used in analysis.
    Many of the books also deal with deviations in the opening - not just main lines. This is because they are specialist books & many of the openings I use are, if not obscure, t ...[text shortened]... e a context for what is correct play & what is inaccurate & more importantly why!
    I only have 2 of those.

    I know you know which one of them is but try and guess the other (clue: it won't be the one you 1st expect but it is a common opening played by me).