Originally posted by orion25Supposing you had to play a GM OTB. You have the option of using a database and he doesn't. Are you really saying it will be just as hard for you to play the opening with and without the database access? Which one is more likely to see you survive the opening with a decent position?
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.
I would definitely opt for the database access. Yes, he might try an offbeat line, but he could do that anyway. Overall, my chances of playing the opening better would be increased and it would be easier. There would be less thinking independently and more looking up and comparing previous games. The latter is easier.
Originally posted by WillzzzKasparov was known for his great opening preparation and knowledge. Do you think anyone can do likewise with enough dedication and knowledge? I don't. Players like Kasparov, Fischer, etc. displayed this impressive ability (let's not debate the meaning of "skill"; "ability" will suffice).
Memory and fitness are very similar, anyone can do it, it just takes time and dedication.
Alternatively, having someone work methodically with a database isn't so impressive. It may be labour intensive but it's not as hard to do well.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe GM or any other competent OTB player is still "looking up and comparing previous games" he just does it in his head. Generally speaking opening moves are not thought about in the same way that you would evaluate a mid game position. I would say that the very definition of the "opening" is when moves are still being made from memory.
There would be less thinking independently and more looking up and comparing previous games. The latter is easier.
Undoubtedly if you haven't memorised your opening moves then a database is a huge advantage, but there is no real difference between the two except the amount of preparation required. For most of us, chess is a hobby, if you are a professional player then yes you find the time to memorise openings.
I think we probably don't disagree all that much, perhaps I should rephrase:
Use of a database is no substitute for skill, a database will not enable you to defeat better skilled players, it will just ensure you survive to the middle game.
The database opening battle is my probably my favorite part of CC. I think there is a real skill involved in getting good positions.
the thing that I struggle with in terms of "fair" play is drawing the line on what amount of computer preparation one can use. Obviously engine's are illegal, as typically are engine vs engine games and tablebases - but lets say you are preparing openings for tournament use (otb for example) - I check the lines I plan to play for errors (trust but verify) especially where my sources are older -
now is this preparation illegal for play on RHP? I assume it is, but it strikes me as a strange distinction since it is commonplace for book writing, otb prep etc.
Along those lines if you played a line and then went over it afterwards with an engine, if you find improvements via engine post game.. are those useable next time you play? Should one timestamp there engine analysis so that they can prove it was worked out prior to play..
Originally posted by nimzo5Rec'd- a great post.
The database opening battle is my probably my favorite part of CC. I think there is a real skill involved in getting good positions.
the thing that I struggle with in terms of "fair" play is drawing the line on what amount of computer preparation one can use. Obviously engine's are illegal, as typically are engine vs engine games and tablebases - but lets ...[text shortened]... one timestamp there engine analysis so that they can prove it was worked out prior to play..
I also worry about this every time a new book comes out. The line between the writer's analysis and that of his silicon Sancho Panza has already been blurred almost beyond recognition, and it will only get worse.
And when we add that programmers are getting closer and closer in terms of their programs emulating human play, things get really cloudy.
Originally posted by wormwoodWhat do you think of this explanation of how to use a db?
I know you don't, that's exactly my point. getting a hold of a database is not the problem. using it in a way that doesn't make you a walking target for the more experienced db users is.
http://tinyurl.com/2v7m4go
Hi JS.
OK but it's not the way I've seen a DB at work in the hands of a good player.
I see someone asked this DB 'expert' how to do you merge two databases.
His answer....
"I don't know how to combine 2 databases....."
This had me giggling for a good half hour so I thank you for that.
I see others saying you should use a DB full of GM games.
So I pluck at random:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5?!
And I wonder how many GM games have gone this way and how many of the
other hundreds of dodgy-iffy openings that one faces OTB are included
in this GM database.
Listening to Mozart will not make you a brilliant musician.
Looking at a Rembrandt will not make you a brillianrt artist.
Lifting moves from a DB full of GM games will certainly not make
you a good chess player. It will hinder you more than anything.
You have to study Mozart and Rembrandt and then.....OOPS!...Sorry...
I've mentioned the word study. Study = hard work...I've lost them.....
And Varenka (this post surprise me mate - was it a joke?).
Playing a GM with access to a DB had these 'nail on the head' phrases.
"....and it would be easier."
"There would be less thinking independently....."
"The latter is easier."
So we now appraoch the crux of the matter.
Is blindly following a DB good for your chess?
Who cares?
'It's easier and requires less independant thinking.'
🙁
I see a few patzer v patzer examples.
Patzer memorises opening llne, patzer get's taken out the book
and drops a piece to elementry tactic.
Patzer's solution is to buy a different book (this time on an opening
that does have any tactics....we have all seen the threads pleading for this).
Come on lads. Stop being lemmings, realise your full potential.
If you put half the effort you put into being an opening parrot into
developing your game then you would rise above the fog.
Good players are not created, they put some effort into developing their...,.
Damn.....effort=work.....I've lost them again.
Forget it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34No, not a joke, but I think you misunderstood where I'm coming from. I don't like the fact that a database lookup can provide a quick and lazy way of finding decent moves.
And Varenka (this post surprise me mate - was it a joke?).
Playing a GM with access to a DB had these 'nail on the head' phrases.
"....and it would be easier."
"There would be less thinking independently....."
"The latter is easier."
I think we're all agreed that anyone who blindly uses a database without thinking is not going to improve their chess.
We're also agreed that the best way to use a database is to do a thorough investigation of the position, and to avoid just looking at the raw stats.
The debate is - for me, at least - in terms of winning a game (forgetting improvement), can a database provide a quick and lazy way of finding good moves which may contribute significantly to winning the game? I think yes. And that's an unfortunate aspect.
Originally posted by Varenkaback when I used databases, it was commonplace that low rated players followed the main lines quite blindly. it made playing them very easy - you took them to a type of equal position YOU liked, then made any half decent move and watched them crumble within 10 moves. like fish in a barrel. -the guys who played their own random openings were always the most difficult opponents.
No, not a joke, but I think you misunderstood where I'm coming from. I don't like the fact that a database lookup can provide a quick and lazy way of finding decent moves.
I think we're all agreed that anyone who blindly uses a database without thinking is not going to improve their chess.
We're also agreed that the best way to use a database is to do ...[text shortened]... tribute significantly to winning the game? I think yes. And that's an unfortunate aspect.