Can i use books to aid play ?

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Its obvious that use of books and databases will help improve your play. But make no mistake doing so requires a lot of effort to understand what is best play and more importantly why.Once you know this it is of course also possible to implement this OTB.

You need to bear in mind that people are here for different reasons. I am here to improve OTB pla ...[text shortened]... ical. It is allowed and, indeed, expected by most people and my profile tells you I will do it.

You are avoiding the issue, your insubstantial and unreasonable defense of using databases and books is laughable and silly.

tamuzi
Opening from the book where you have a clear tactically sound analysis of your position 12-20 plies deep during the game is not using your brain, and I feel is cheating. At that point it is no longer correspondence chess but directed chess, until you go out of the book.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
...In correspondence chess, book use is a long and respected element of the game.

Show me some real proof of the validity of this statement, otherwise that is just an false supposition. You are just making this up, you are clearly avoiding my direct question, supplying instead bogus justifications and circular explanations.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It may not always work like that, but it can.

I’ve sometimes had a game in the opening where my opponent has played an unusual move at an early stage. Sometimes there is no strong refutation, and sometimes I’m able to find a strong refutation with my own thinking. But there’s also been times when a database lookup has been responsible for highlighting the strong refutation. It’s true that DBs often contain master games, but some of these games can be a master outplaying a weaker opponent in the opening and such mistakes sometimes get repeated.

It stands to reason that lower rated players not using DBs should ask “can I avoid big mistakes in the opening by finding games where someone has done likewise previously, and not repeating”. Openings sometimes include traps. Being made aware of these in advance is an advantage – not an unfair advantage (it’s not cheating), but still an advantage.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Show me some real proof of the validity of this statement, otherwise that is just an false supposition. You are just making this up, you are clearly avoiding my direct question, supplying instead bogus justifications and circular explanations.

You are kidding, right?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess

Structure of correspondence chess

Correspondence chess differs from over-the-board play in several respects. While players in OTB chess generally play one at a time (an exception being a simultaneous exhibition), correspondence players often have several games going at once. Tournament games are played concurrently, and some players may have more than one hundred games continuing at the same time.

Time limits in correspondence play are usually between 30 and 60 days for every 10 moves (plus transmission time in postal chess). This time allows for far deeper calculation, meaning that blunders can be less frequent. Certain forms of assistance, including books, chess databases and sometimes chess programs, are often allowed. Books and databases are almost universally acceptable, but organizations vary as to whether chess engine use is permitted. Hobby players new to the distinctive appeal of correspondence chess sometimes shun all assistance.

---------------


Here at RHP Books and data are allowed, but Engines are not. So books and data are NOT cheating, where using an engine IS cheating by the established rules of RHP. This is either in the TOS or FAQ if you'd like to read up on the rules of this site.

Oh that's sure reliable, quoting from wikipedia. it should be obvious that "almost universally accepted" means can't be prevented. And "are often allowed" does not equal always allowed, i am quoting your own source. And i don't care what it says in the TOS, using a chess aid to see several plies deep into a position is cheating, you would never do that in an OTB game, especially in tournament conditions. But this still leads to my second point - i am still waiting for reliable proof that all online turn based chess sites were created with the idea of using databases and chess books in mind, and openly encourage and promote this idea.

At any rate as long as both players agree i don't see the problem, of course the same goes for plain vanilla correspondence chess. But that is clearly not the case here, most players here don't admit or let it be known that they actually do this, or that they are actually relying upon databases and chessbooks to make their next move, it is a pitfall that one must be wary of.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You are avoiding the issue, your insubstantial and unreasonable defense of using databases and books is laughable and silly.

tamuzi
Opening from the book where you have a clear tactically sound analysis of your position 12-20 plies deep during the game is not using your brain, and I feel is cheating. At that point it is no longer correspondence chess but directed chess, until you go out of the book.

I don't have to defend my use of books and databases. Its not a secret and its allowed. I consider that their use helps me improve which is why I do it but its no good just following the book blindly as you need to understand what you are doing and why and this takes a lot of effort.

Take Game 2285088 I followed the book until move 12 when it ended with the statement "White has a decisive advantage on the black squares" and I proceeded to lose.

Or Game 2277047 where I followed a book line to a point where my opponent had a forced mate.

Since these games I have taken a number of actions (1) I purchased a few new and more up to date books and (2) I play through lines before I mke the move ensuring I am happy with it understand it and know what I need to do when the line ends. If I don't like the end position I avoid the line or search out an early deviation.

All of this takes a lot of effort. If you follow books blindly you will lose and the position with DBs is even harder as you generally don't have the explanation a book gives you.

I don't have to justify this as it is allowed and the fact that I think it benefits me is all that matters. If I feel my opponent has a better book or better understanding of the opening than me I deviate early or follow a different line with the objective of geting him out of book.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I don't have to defend my use of books and databases.

But you proceed to do just that.

Don't feed the troll.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Oh that's sure reliable, quoting from wikipedia. it should be obvious that "almost universally accepted" means can't be prevented. And "are often allowed" does not equal always allowed, i am quoting your own source. And i don't care what it says in the TOS, using a chess aid to see several plies deep into a position is cheating, you would never do that i bases and chessbooks to make their next move, it is a pitfall that one must be wary of.

I don't really care "why" people use data or books, the point is by the rules of this site it is NOT cheating. Also, you have know idea what data and book study is if you think it's going to help you in every game you play, most games are out of book by move 10 or sooner, that leaves 30 or so moves to make on your own.

Data is not a powerful winning super aid, it's just a few established openings and games players can refer to if they wish. I have a feeling you think it's something that helps the player decide their whole game.

You also compare OTB rules to CC.. that's like yelling "Cheaters!" at a NASCAR race and telling them about the Kentucky Derby. They are both racing, but different rules.

P-

Uh huh. You have only shown that the rather far-fetched idea that correspondence chess means that databases and chessbooks use is acceptable is rather tenuous. And you have altogether avoided the question of turn-based chess sites that promote or actively encourage the idea of using databases and chessbooks to help players make moves. If that was the case you would think that russ would put a rather promiment link to his gamesexplorer on the front page instead of burying the link in his site. In fact it is not even on the site map.

http://www.timeforchess.com/vstat/links.php

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Uh huh. You have only shown that the rather far-fetched idea that correspondence chess means that databases and chessbooks use is acceptable is rather tenuous. And you have altogether avoided the question of turn-based chess sites that promote or actively encourage the idea of using databases and chessbooks to help players make moves. If that was the cas ...[text shortened]... is site. In fact it is not even on the site map.

http://www.timeforchess.com/vstat/links.php

I'm not sure what is taking so long for him to make a direct link to it. Firefox, Greasemonkey, and RHP scripts give me a direct link.

I don't think Data and Book use is some dirty secret Russ is trying to hide, more like he's just not got to posting it yet.

I'm not sure a chess site would 'promote' use of data, it's just an option that you have if you would like. That's like RHP promoting Queen openings because they are more sound... RHP is a chess site, and the rules are that you can use data and books if you like.

If people ask about books or data, I doubt there are any users who would lie and say they don't if they do, it's not a dirty secret.

I use data here or there if I am playing someone much stronger than me, no sense in losing the game in the first 8 moves or so... soon enough you get out of data, and you're all on your own.

As for other sites? Who knows. If there were a rule saying don't use book or data, how could it be proven? Someone matches a database on move 22... you would need to call both users cheaters. Chances are no one is going to get 44 half moves into an established game unless they were using the data, and it's not one guy cheating now, it's 2. And who cares?! Many people follow data not even realizing they are using data poorly and get themselves into a crap position because they were not thinking about what the data was telling them.

I just feel you give data too much credit, and most people who fear data or think it's cheating really don't know what it is.

P-

You are still dancing around the issue, your distortions are laughable and insincere, your circular excuses are absurd. Obviously i am not the only one here who thinks that this is a form cheating and little else. It is hardly the clever "learning tool" that you and others pretend it to be.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Oh that's sure reliable, quoting from wikipedia. it should be obvious that "almost universally accepted" means can't be prevented. And "are often allowed" does not equal always allowed, i am quoting your own source. And i don't care what it says in the TOS, using a chess aid to see several plies deep into a position is cheating, you would never do that i bases and chessbooks to make their next move, it is a pitfall that one must be wary of.

I rely on both a lot of the time. And there is a long term history of book/database (only recently obviously) in correspondence chess. You can see the latest theory of the day being played in correspondence chess as far back as the databases go, people will be consulting the books while they play and these days they will be consulting databases too. Or maybe they just randomly get to positions that are new in theory?


Theres quite a few ICCF GMs knocking around places like playchess, If you have any doubt that they consult databases or books I advise you to ask Burnoulli on playchess since he has an ICCF GM norm (ICCF ELO 2491 rating) and will happily answer all your database/book questions.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You are still dancing around the issue, your distortions are laughable and insincere, your circular excuses are absurd. Obviously i am not the only one here who thinks that this is a form cheating and little else. It is hardly the clever "learning tool" that you and others pretend it to be.

Perhaps I'm not understanding EXACTLY what you need me to either say or understand. What is the point I am dancing around and I'll try to address that.

P-

I won't bother to read the previous pages, as it'll be the same exact 'discussion' it always is. but I am going to say what I've said in every other thread like this before:

all you low rated people who think books and especially dbs are 'cheating', start using them. it won't give any rating points, as openings are not the reason you lose your games. BUT, it will do a WORLD OF GOOD to your chess. it's like going through master games, focusing only on opening moves. and you will inhale some of it, build up intuition on what kind of moves might work and what might not. instead of trying every legal move, you'll learn to look at the most likely ones first. your games will start looking like real games, you'll learn to build up tension, stay flexible and solid. your positions will stop looking like caved-in volcanoes, with a collapsed centre and some weak pawns on the sides.

and when you stop using dbs, that intuition will stay with you. it won't save you from missing complex ideas, but it will help you avoid losing tempi with pointless moves, inducing unnecessary weaknesses, or grabbing pawns when it's not wise. it'll make you a better player, so do it.

of course, all of that requires that you work the positions instead of simply following blindly. blind db use is just time wasted.