Originally posted by Paul LeggettSuppose, patzer1 is playing patzer2.
What patzer does not know is that the move won 99 times until the antidote was found, which lost and effectively refuted the variation, which is no longer played.
Patzer2 has a more up-to-date database and is better at using it. He's not very good at chess but he knows how to sort a database by date order. He can see that a recent game lost, despite the earlier 99 wins.
So the battle of the databases commences and patzer2 wins by replaying the refutation from the database. Unfortunately, the chess content was minimal.
Originally posted by VarenkaPatzer1, [pid]58335[/pid], I find but not patzer2...
Suppose, patzer1 is playing patzer2.
Patzer2 has a more up-to-date database and is better at using it. He's not very good at chess but he knows how to sort a database by date order. He can see that a recent game lost, despite the earlier 99 wins.
So the battle of the databases commences and patzer2 wins by replaying the refutation from the database. Unfortunately, the chess content was minimal.
The bad news about following a GM databse or a book is it may drop you off
at a postion that only a GM can squeeze a win out of and this path may
be very narrow.
I use books and look for obscure lines or wee traps that have worked
or may be worth a punt.
But I do look at what I am expected to reach to see if I think I can play
that postion. If not or the 'hole' is in my opinion to easy to spot then
I stay away from it.
Originally posted by JS357I didn't mean you were stupid. just that you don't have a clue about playing with databases, which requires specific skills, and hence 'argue' points which don't really even exist. in short, everything you think you know about databases is probably wrong.
Perhaps my terminology needs the benefit of the doubt? I'm not stupid.
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaThe thing with looking at GM games is that these are all OTB games AFAIK. As I understand it what usually happens is that as most GM's have an encyclopaedic knowledge, whoever has the initiative will take it off book into a line they have prepared in some depth in the hope of drawing their opponent into some trap.
It's possible to only include games with players rated above e.g. 2500. Then I think the vast majority of moves are of a decent quality.
When the game is taken off book it will invariably be a less sound move. The idea is that the player who has the initiative has a "database" in his head of this obscure variation whereas his opponent is forced to play off the cuff. An engine looking at this deviation from book may rate it at say 0.5 worse than the "best" move. The player is taking a gamble that he can get back this 0.5 deficit and more due to his preparation of this line.
Now OTB this may well work, but in CC chess this surprise tactic doesn't work. You pull off an unusual move and your opponent has several days to do his own analysis of the line and find a way to capitalise on the theoretical advantage.
Originally posted by wormwoodI don't know why you think that. They aren't hard to find.
I didn't mean you were stupid. just that you don't have a clue about playing with databases, which requires specific skills, and hence 'argue' points which don't really even exist. in short, everything you think you know about databases is probably wrong.
Originally posted by VarenkaThis is just one example of the myriad mistakes that can be made by the blind database user.
Suppose, patzer1 is playing patzer2.
Patzer2 has a more up-to-date database and is better at using it. He's not very good at chess but he knows how to sort a database by date order. He can see that a recent game lost, despite the earlier 99 wins.
So the battle of the databases commences and patzer2 wins by replaying the refutation from the database. Unfortunately, the chess content was minimal.
That said, I think we have to be careful about defining the application of known chess knowledge as a lack of chess content. By that logic, everything we learn and apply in chess from another source- or even our own prior play- lacks chess content.
The advantage of a database is that it provides a large amount of raw information, and it reduces the need for mental recall for a game, since you can reference it in CC as opposed to recalling it from memory in OTB.
To a certain extent, I think we could make an argument that the CC way is more "pure" in that the winner may be the person who better interprets, understands, and applies the knowledge, rather than in OTB where the advantage is with the person with the better memory or recall.
To a certain extent, an OTB game is a battle of databases in the form of human memory, each with a unique "engine".
There's far more to it than that, of course, but I think it is an interesting idea and conversation!
Originally posted by WillzzzI don't agree that a novelty that can work against GMs OTB is unlikely to succeed against a typical RHP player. At the point of being "out of theory", a GM may spend 20 mins on their next move. And during that time, they'll have more insight than most RHP players will gain no matter how long they spend on it.
Now OTB this may well work, but in CC chess this surprise tactic doesn't work. You pull off an unusual move and your opponent has several days to do his own analysis of the line and find a way to capitalise on the theoretical advantage.
If you have GM who is e.g. an experienced King's Indian Defence player then their understanding of that opening doesn't become completely irrelevant in the face of one new move. They will still understand the position better than your average CC player ever will.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThe big difference is whether we've been able to understand and/or memorise/recall it.
I think we have to be careful about defining the application of known chess knowledge as a lack of chess content. By that logic, everything we learn and apply in chess from another source- or even our own prior play- lacks chess content.
If I told you a young kid could tell you any flag of the world, would you be impressed? Would it make a difference if he was doing it from memory or reading it from a book while you asked him? Of course it would! 🙂
A player who memorises opening theory and then recalls it during a game is displaying a skill. A person who looks up a reference to find an answer is only showing a skill at looking up references, and that's hardly an impressive chess skill.
Originally posted by VarenkaFirstly, yes a GM will have a better understanding of the position than a random CC player. However we aren't talking about a GM playing, we are talking about someone using a GM's move from a database.
I don't agree that a novelty that can work against GMs OTB is unlikely to succeed against a typical RHP player. At the point of being "out of theory", a GM may spend 20 mins on their next move. And during that time, they'll have more insight than most RHP players will gain no matter how long they spend on it.
If you have GM who is e.g. an experienced ...[text shortened]... ve. They will still understand the position better than your average CC player ever will.
If a player blindly copies a move that one GM used to demolish another GM, this doesn't mean that player is likely to win his game. NEITHER player has the GM's ability to analyse the board, but if you are 0.5 points behind it could make the difference.
Secondly, there's a good chance that refutations to this novelty are also in the database. What I am saying is that it does take skill to utilise the contents of a database, you can't just pick the moves with the highest win percentage and say that is the best move.
Originally posted by VarenkaI don't agree, there are so many different lines, and so many factors to consider, that choosing the correct line is an important chess skill in CC. There are so many different lines in openings, for example, that choosing one over the other requires good ability in judging yourself, your competences and weaknesses, as well as your opponent's through analysis of his games, and evaluation.
A player who memorises opening theory and then recalls it during a game is displaying a skill. A person who looks up a reference to find an answer is only showing a skill at looking up references, and that's hardly an impressive chess skill.
The only difference in CC and OTB is for OTB you have to use the skill "memory", but also you will use less of those skills referenced earlier, as you won't know all the lines anyway, narrowing down your choices.
Memorisation of facts is not a skill as such.
Exams are no longer dependant on memorising quotes or dates, this is because the prevailing opinion is that analytical skills are more important than rote learning.
In sport players rely on fitness and skill. Memory and fitness are very similar, anyone can do it, it just takes time and dedication. Both can be impressive, but they aren't skills in themselves.
Originally posted by WillzzzNo, but it increases the probability.
If a player blindly copies a move that one GM used to demolish another GM, this doesn't mean that player is likely to win his game.
For example, engines play stronger when using a database of GM opening moves than compared with engines using no opening database. Why don't they score equally?