Can i use books to aid play ?

Originally posted by Erekose
What do you mean by "cheap shot" here? You mean that the non-DB using player makes a tactical error (i.e. a mistake), and the DB-using player notices that its a mistake partly because he finds a game in a database where this error is strongly punished? How is it a cheap shot to exploit a mistake?

This sort of thing happens all the time in OTB - the only difference is that OTB players memorize the winning lines, rather than looking them up.

It's a cheap shot because a child who doesn't even know how to play chess can mimic a DB user during the opening, but couldn't mimic an OTB player likewise. The skill or memorisation required in CC can be zero but when does an OTB player get such moves for free? i.e. not part of their knowledge or skill

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Pathetic ad hominem, surely you can do better. Using books and databases is not the same as thinking or using your brain. And once again this deliberate smearing of the lines between cc and otb is ridiculous.

you don't think a lack of understanding chess is what separates a 1300 and a 2200 player?


you know, I've seen so many times that a player takes it personally when his shortcomings are pointed out, that it isn't even funny. getting defensive, angry, seeing insults where there isn't any. -one thing these people have in common is: none of them improves over time.

to improve, you need to face your weaknesses objectively. there's no place for hurt pride in any kind of self-improvement project.

Originally posted by Varenka
It's a cheap shot because a child who doesn't even know how to play chess can mimic a DB user during the opening, but couldn't mimic an OTB player likewise. The skill or memorisation required in CC can be zero but when does an OTB player get such moves for free? i.e. not part of their knowledge or skill

No, a child couldn't do it. Even in positions with obvious tactical mistakes, databases almost always give multiple move choices, and a fair number of times the strongest move is not the most common one. You have to evaluate the positon yourself and try to determine if the subsequent play was convincing, as well. If a child used a database to make moves randomly, their odds of getting a good position 10 moves out are pretty low.

Originally posted by Varenka
It's a cheap shot because a child who doesn't even know how to play chess can mimic a DB user during the opening, but couldn't mimic an OTB player likewise. The skill or memorisation required in CC can be zero but when does an OTB player get such moves for free? i.e. not part of their knowledge or skill

A child could follow database moves but that doesn't mean a thing.
Some people here have just shown their total ignorance.
Databases have to be used with great scepticism & here's why; the results are often so skewed by later errors that many times the end result of the game is totally irrelevant for the opening line that was followed.

The statistical relevance of results is a big issue when using a db. White is shown as having won the only 2 games in the 4.2m game database, for instance, but both times Black missed an equalising (or winning) move.

The quality of the games is another problem. You look through a game at a particular line & find out it was played in the 1991 U10 Norwegian girls Championship Round 1. Games may contain multiple blunders, or at the very least inaccuracies.

This leads to the third major issue in my opinion & that is the reverse result blunder factor. Put simply, you fail to see & follow the winning line, because the results look unfavourable because of later bad play in those otherwise correct lines.

90% of my games go completely "out-of-book" in the first 8-12 moves anyway & we're still in the opening!

I doubt that some of the idiots who posted in this thread have the attention span to read this post, let alone understand it.
They are the MTV generation of chess players - can't even be arsed to read a book, then blame others for doing what they can to improve their chess, whilst still playing within the rules of this website.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Wrong. Squelchbelch made a rather implausible assumption, and i "refuted" it.

By the way, retard; a refutation would imply you have statistical evidence to back-up your case.
You just made a counter-assumption.

Originally posted by Erekose
No, a child couldn't do it. Even in positions with obvious tactical mistakes, databases almost always give multiple move choices, and a fair number of times the strongest move is not the most common one. You have to evaluate the positon yourself and try to determine if the subsequent play was convincing, as well. If a child used a database to make moves randomly, their odds of getting a good position 10 moves out are pretty low.

When computers play the opening from their opening books, they use *zero* evaluation of their own. Instead, it's just an algorithm of looking up a database; checking winning probabilities; looking to see that the players were of a sufficiently high grade; etc. That's numbers; not playing chess.

Are you saying computers arrive out of their opening books in positions that generally aren't good? And if the positions are good, what chess ability do they use while playing from an opening book? I say none.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Pathetic ad hominem, surely you can do better. Using books and databases is not the same as thinking or using your brain. And once again this deliberate smearing of the lines between cc and otb is ridiculous.

Using books and databases also demands use of your brain. Brainless using of books of databases will not help you too much.

Ridiculous is your obvious ignorance and inability to understand obvious difference between OTB and CC.

P.S. Are you pretend to be more qualified in chess than me?

Originally posted by Varenka
When computers play the opening from their opening books, they use *zero* evaluation of their own. Instead, it's just an algorithm of looking up a database; checking winning probabilities; looking to see that the players were of a sufficiently high grade; etc. That's numbers; not playing chess.

Are you saying computers arrive out of their opening books ...[text shortened]... ons are good, what chess ability do they use while playing from an opening book? I say none.

No, when you computers play openings, they make moves based on probabilities assigned by humans, based on the human's understanding of the game, human analysis, etc. So, when computers use their opening books, they are using someone else's analysis of whether the position is good or not. And yes, sometimes they are wrong.

This case is just like an OTB player memorizing an opening out of a book and playing the first "x" moves without even thinking. Unless you think this is cheating too.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Databases have to be used with great scepticism & here's why; the results are often so skewed by later errors that many times the end result of the game is totally irrelevant for the opening line that was followed.

See my previous post using comptuer opening books as a comparison. These books are often tuned to avoid lines which appear good but aren't.

If Fritz can play the opening well just by looking up a book, why can't I by using the same book? Of course, when the book runs out, we're on our own, but I'm referring to the quality of play that can be achieved just by doing a cheap lookup during the opening.

Originally posted by Erekose
No, when you computers play openings, they make moves based on probabilities assigned by humans, based on the human's understanding of the game, human analysis, etc. So, when computers use their opening books, they are using someone else's analysis of whether the position is good or not. And yes, sometimes they are wrong.

This case is just like an OTB ...[text shortened]... d playing the first "x" moves without even thinking. Unless you think this is cheating too.

Regardless of how an engine book is generated, I can use it to guide my play during CC. And no, I don't think computers get caught out much in the opening while using a large and quality opening book.

When an OTB player memorises an opening, that requires an ability from them. i.e. a test of their memory. Just like if I sit an exam and aren't allowed to read my text books during the exam - it's still testing some of my abilities.

But take away the need to memorise and just allow direct lookup, and then what human ability are we still testing?

Originally posted by Varenka
...But take away the need to memorise and just allow direct lookup, and then what human ability are we still testing?

Your chess abilities.
Many times the database results are extremely misleading, also the games tend to go out of book very early, especially if playing against someone who never uses any reference help. Did you not read my post from the last page? 😉
If out of book on move 6 what happens to the scum-sucking, low-life database-junky-patzer now?

Originally posted by Korch
Using books and databases also demands use of your brain. Brainless using of books of databases will not help you too much.

I agree that in order to get the most benefit out of books/databases, we need to use our brains.

But my difference of opinion is what benefit we may get by doing quick/lazy lookups with only a minimal amount of checking. I think the benefits can still be significant in some games.

I played this game recently: Game 4892521

It lasted 11 moves, 10 of which I got from my database without doing any hardwork at all. Now, I'm not saying this is the norm - it's the exception - but these things do happen.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Your chess abilities.
Many times the database results are extremely misleading, also the games tend to go out of book very early, especially if playing against someone like yourself, who never uses any reference help. Did you not read my post from the last page? 😉
If out of book on move 6 what happens to the scum-sucking, low-life database-junky-patzer now?

>> Many times the database results are extremely misleading

Engines like Rybka, Fritz, etc. have book authors who construct/tune opening books for these engines. The lines will have flaws, but these are rare. And these books are often made public so I don't believe I will be often mislead by following such books.

>> who never uses any reference help

I do use references. And they've sometimes made things easier without investing any great effort. This is my point.

>> If out of book on move 6

True, then we're on our own. But advocating the use of books/databases is not really focused on getting out of theory a.s.a.p. Instead it tends to prolong it.

Originally posted by Varenka
>> Many times the database results are extremely misleading

Engines like Rybka, Fritz, etc. have book authors who construct/tune opening books for these engines. The lines will have flaws, but these are rare. And these books are often made public so I don't believe I will be often mislead by following such books.

>> who never uses any reference help ...[text shortened]... ases is not really focused on getting out of theory a.s.a.p. Instead it tends to prolong it.

Well I find the opening thematics for my OTB repertoire are helped by database/book study that I use on this site, so I shall continue to do so, regardless.

Originally posted by Varenka
I agree that in order to get the most benefit out of books/databases, we need to use our brains.

But my difference of opinion is what benefit we may get by doing quick/lazy lookups with only a minimal amount of checking. I think the benefits can still be significant in some games.

I played this game recently: Game 4892521

It lasted 11 moves, ...[text shortened]... all. Now, I'm not saying this is the norm - it's the exception - but these things do happen.

I dont think that these 10 moves are so hard to figure out without databases. Personally I think that I could play these 10 moves in blitz.