13 Jan 05
Originally posted by ouroborosLibraries stifle scientific advancement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/technology/circuits/13ches.html?th
The proliferation of databases has made opening play much less creative. Database use may also slow the progress of beginners since they cannot determine on their own what is a good and bad idea.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by ouroborosschoolbooks stiffle students, they make school boring and don't let students find much stuff out by them selve :-(
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/technology/circuits/13ches.html?th
The proliferation of databases has made opening play much less creative. Database use may also slow the progress of beginners since they cannot determine on their own what is a good and bad idea.
13 Jan 05
Databases aren't giving us any more information than a set of books.
I remember, before databases, playing correspondence games and relying on post-in notes in Informator volumes or whatever other source I was using.
The only difference is that the databases handle the data efficiently, but the data was always there.
14 Jan 05
I only play correspondence in order to actively study while i play. Most of the games i play here i just analyse as i play. However when i play a strong opponent (1900+), i will consult my database at home. IE, i'll play a couple of moves and then run statistics to make sure im not heading down a crappy line. This means that i'll study 20 or 30 games sometimes which means i am learning theory that is relevant to my style. I've read numerous books by old masters that use ancient opening theory. I never play e4, yet every book i read is 90% e4 openings. This way i study games that are relevant, and hopefully improve slowly. 😕
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by nonnymooseThe lazy don't get much benefit out of a database. Say you look at your database and see that a certain move has been played 200 times for a score of 70%. That would seem like a good bet wouldn't it. However a closer look reveals that the last time a GM played it was 1940 and there are two alternatives for the next move. One has been played 170 times for a very good score (say around 20% from the opponents view point so 80% from yours) and the other has an abysmal score. Then you see that those 30 bad games were the most recent games in the line. This would come up if someone found a refution to a previously good line. Problem is if your opponent also has a database then chances are he plays the refuting line and you end up in a bad position.
There will always be tools that enable folks to "know less" and get by while others use those tools to good effect. The lazy are the lazy. Nothing you can do about that.
Nonny
So because you played a move based on the score it is has earned in the past without looking at the meaning behind the numbers you suffer.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI only use the statistics to get a basic picture of the line. Once i've found an interesting move i'll search by elo to find some games to look at. I don't use the tree at all, that's just lazy and doesn't teach you anything. Do you use one?
The lazy don't get much benefit out of a database. Say you look at your database and see that a certain move has been played 200 times for a score of 70%. That would seem like a good bet wouldn't it. However a closer look reveals that the last time a GM played it was 1940 and there are two alternatives for the next move. One has been played 170 times for ...[text shortened]... score it is has earned in the past without looking at the meaning behind the numbers you suffer.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI use an opening database yes. True I could possibly use it in a way to not learn anything. But when I'm playing a line I'm studying it and memorizing what I can. I want to get better at OTB play as well.
I only use the statistics to get a basic picture of the line. Once i've found an interesting move i'll search by elo to find some games to look at. I don't use the tree at all, that's just lazy and doesn't teach you anything. Do you use one?
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEspecially if you are a layman to the subject. I know that I've never generated a creative thought in theoretical physics even though I've read the general market books on the subject. Obviously, a more adept theoretical physicist would be able to build upon existing theories but if you always follow the currently held beliefs, you don't make the creative or intuitive leap.
Libraries stifle scientific advancement.
In the article GM Ehlvest opines: "...better players are more able to take advantage of the abundant information provided by computers and databases because they have the expertise to identify the ideas that are worth pursuing. For lesser players, he said, computers can actually slow development because they cannnot separate the good ideas from the bad."
GM Kasparov is quoted as saying "The profit maybe is very small [in trying to come up with innovations]. You can only use it in one game." While IM Shahade feels "computers and databases have made chess more predictable and probably less fun" and says that "It seems there is less creativity now".
Of course, for a player at my level, there's still a lot of stumbling around and for me to think that I'm being creative, while in reality I'm probably just playing badly.
14 Jan 05
4 edits
Originally posted by ouroborosYou have failed to observe that all physicists were laymen at one time. But for the existence of libraries, they would all be perpetual laymen, making the very same "creative" mistakes as all of those before them. The physicists of our day would still be saying the world is flat, under your ideal, since they would not be permitted or encouraged to read the work of others. The only way to ensure productive "creativity" is to make sure that you are not engaging in fruitless explorations that have already been carried out.
Especially if you are a layman to the subject. I know that I've never generated a creative thought in theoretical physics even though I've read the general market books on the subject. Obviously, a more adept theoretical physicist wou ...[text shortened]... ntly held beliefs, you don't make the creative or intuitive leap.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI agree, school sucks, it simplifies the mind to accept things as concrete facts through memorization and testing, and it's only used as a means to classify the populace anyways in silly professions of different pay/titles. Personally I think education is OVERATED and is not a good means or the key, to say, free the 3rd world from war (which sounds kinda hypocritical from us 1st worlders BTW). If anything, a massively educated person would make a good warlord/conquerer, Hitler was well educated, Bush too, education means crap, it's done more harm to the world then good. And no, I'm not being sarcastic with this post, it's time to re-think the entire schooling process, it doesn't work, it hasn't worked for 1000 years, it's time we accept that, and reform.
You have failed to observe that all physicists were laymen at one time. But for the existence of libraries, they would all be perpetual laymen, making the very same "creative" mistakes as all of those before them. The physicists of our day would still be saying the world is flat, under your ideal, since they would not be permitted or enco ...[text shortened]... ake sure that you are not engaging in fruitless explorations that have already been carried out.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe thread seems to be splitting in two different directions. One where I just wanted to point out an article that suggests databases and engines are changing the way chess is played and to some extent removing the creativity from the game (1). The other part of the thread seems to be commenting on the use of past work to advance a particular science (2). I don't believe that they are exactly the same thing so I will address them separately.
You have failed to observe that all physicists were laymen at one time. But for the existence of libraries, they would all be perpetual laymen, making the very same "creative" mistakes as all of those before them. The physicists of our day would still be saying the world is flat, under your ideal, since they would not be permitted or enco ...[text shortened]... ake sure that you are not engaging in fruitless explorations that have already been carried out.
(1) I'm not saying that people should be prevented or discouraged from reading the work of others or using databases or engines. You obviously gain a lot from appropriate sources if you are capable of understanding it. I think that what the author of the article is saying is that for the average player using databases to generate moves by rote hamper them from learning since they are not currently capable of judging the merits of a particular move. While GM Kasparov expresses the opinion that it is becoming not worthwhile to invest the time to come up with opening innovations because the information spreads extremely quickly and you can only use a novelty once or twice.
(2) If the geographers [was physicists] of the day only read what was the current theory, they would have all belived that the world was flat. It became necessary for someone to perform experiments or to assume the opposite was true and then prove it. I don't see how reading the texts of the time would lead you to do that. Bringing the topic back to physicist, I'm not sure how Einstein could arrive at a completely different theory of gravity or special relativity by reading the works of those that came before him.... There seems to have been some creative or intuitive leap there.
15 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The lazy don't get much benefit out of a database.
I'm not suggesting the lazy get the most out of databases, only that databases will help someone, even someone who's not completely dedicated, to play better with them than without.
If I find an opening in a database, I have a chance to see what GM's have moved. Even if the lazy guy doesn't ...[text shortened]... eutral. Tools don't make character, nor do they prevent people from developing character.
Nonny