- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by eldragonflyWrong. How is extra study and trying to understand the position lazy? Just getting to the board and trying to find a move based on the limited experience you have is lazy, you dont challenge yourself to accept and understand new ways of thinking. At the end of the day you're against books and databases because you're lazy, it doesnt appear there is anything more to it.
Wrong. The laziness is in using a book or a database to make your next move, and to examine variations several plies deep.
I guess most correspondence GMs are lazy, I asked Gerson Berlinger ICCF rating 2491 if he would answer your questions about books and databases in correspondence chess, he said he would do it. The only reason you have to keep prattling on is that you're too lazy to make a free playchess account and talk to Bernoulli there.....Im going to assume (probably wrongly) that you'd take a correspondences masters word for it.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI believe and accept that. I too have learned things about openings while looking up databases for RHP games. No disagreement here. 🙂
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.
Where I differ is that believe that DB lookups can also be used lazily and not give any OTB gains BUT yet still improve one's CC rating to some degree (though not as much as thorough DB use, of course).
Originally posted by KorchBut my point stands. I didn't have to worry whether I could figure them out for myself. Click on RHP.... click on Chessbase... click... click... click... put move into RHP.
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.
It's the fact that DB lookups sometimes allow such extreme slopiness and still reward it with a win, that I find a negative aspect of DB usage. Would be nicer if such laziness was punished more.
By-the-way, I don't see any way that DB/book lookup could feasibly be removed from CC play. It's just part of CC. I'm just discussing the pros and cons.
Originally posted by VarenkaBelieve me - blind using of DBs may punished quite often especially against strong players.
But my point stands. I didn't have to worry whether I could figure them out for myself. Click on RHP.... click on Chessbase... click... click... click... put move into RHP.
It's the fact that DB lookups sometimes allow such extreme slopiness and still reward it with a win, that I find a negative aspect of DB usage. Would be nicer if such laziness was pu bly be removed from CC play. It's just part of CC. I'm just discussing the pros and cons.
Originally posted by VarenkaThis is possible, I agree.
Where I differ is that believe that DB lookups can also be used lazily and not give any OTB gains [b]BUT yet still improve one's CC rating to some degree (though not as much as thorough DB use, of course).[/b]
However, the other mitigating factors will limit the amount of CC rating points to some degree. If for instance a 1400 uses a database against another 1400 the game will lilkely go out of book early. How massive an advantage can you get by move 6 unless your opponent has made a hideously bad move which will be punished anyway?
If the 1400 is a "lazy" db user then perhaps the incorrect line will be played. If the game stays in book to move 20+ then obviously both 1400's are using reference materials, so either way I don't really see that much of an issue.
Originally posted by KorchYes. This idea of playing online chess using databases and books would most likely artificially boost someones online rating as compared to a real world rating. In any event this "advantage" would not translate to OTB and tournament play.
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 Varenkaexcellent point, there is no skill involved in accessing a database and relying upon chessbooks to help someone make moves in a chess game.
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 ...[text shortened]... d to memorise and just allow direct lookup, and then what human ability are we still testing?
Originally posted by SquelchbelchIrrelevant. You can't back up your idiotic viewpoint because even a child can figure out that relying upon databases and books is not the real thing.
This guy is clearly a troll.
I am not going to reply to any more posts of his & I urge others to do likewise.
Originally posted by VarenkaWhite did not need a DB to tell him his 8th, 9th, 10th or 11th move as all were totally obvious and prior to move 7 there was absolutely nothing special.
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.
Dragonfire: Perhaps this explains why they are weaker. I hope they don't carry this analogy into their every action, perhaps saying a lawyer cannot consult his law books, a judge cannot consult tombs of previous decisions in chambers before sentencing, an Accountant must not consult tax tables and a Doctor must certainly not look up the symptons of his patients illness on a database. Perhaps he considers that as the use of books and databases confers some sort of unfair advantage and by allowing them anyone can be a lawyer, accountant or doctor but overlooks that the effort involved in studying books and learning is very intense in all aspects of life and unless you have a certain level of skill they are useless.
False analogy: Doctoring. Accounting etc. is not a game/competition like chess is
If you’ve read and understood my posts you would see I don’t see it as cheating, in fact I accept that it is the best way to work on your skill. But there is a realm that I do find unethical, then again, I have already explained this and I’m not going to again.
Wormwood: 1) where did I insult anyone?
When you admitted you read NOTHING that other people had said because they were lower ranked and therefore inferior to you. IE. You straight out said many people’s opinions were worthless because they are not (yet) as skilled at a game as you.
God, this entire discussion is becoming an argument of strawmen, and I’m sad to say I’m drawn in too.
Again, I’d like to bring up the Ideas of Directed Chess and Correspondence chess. Varenka is talking about it, but where do you draw the line in book/engine usage making is CC rather than DC?
I continue to assert you cannot and therefore using books and engines in direct relevance to ongoing games is a slippery slope at best, but using books after the game to learn, or even during (but independent) to learn seems aok.
There is a reason I have looked up unorthodox openings as both black and white to play on this site. The sooner I force my opponent out of books the better imo. Then again, I still have a lot of learning to do, and I know this. Patience being one of the biggest skills I need to learn.