Originally posted by vivifyIn an OTB game, it is practical to forbid books during the game. In correspondence, it is not. Correspondence games can last for years. Would you expect a player not to read any books (for example) on his favorite openings for all those years?
Sorry, I forgot to add the words "in my opinion". It may be legal here, but in my opinion, that's cheating. Imagine if someone referenced a book during a grandmaster game.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you don't want to seem sincere. You know what you do on this site. Everyone else knows it as well. You post in the spirituality forum and the chess forum (you often get them confused). Why do you continue to post in the chess forum when you know that you are known as nothing more than a cheating religous fanatic? Do you enjoy being patronized and mocked? Do you think that it makes you a better person? It doesn't. It just makes you look like a fool. Have a little self respect please. Your act is tired. Your chess is fake. Why do you think that your posts are entertaining? People tell you that because they think that you are genuinely stupid and they enjoy getting a chuckle out of your blatant disregard for the rules of this site. You said one time that you were leaving this ste, then you said you wouldn't post in the chess forum anymore. You haven't done either. If you could follow through on only one of these promises, please make it the latter. You are not needed in this forum in any way.
I don't want to seem nosey. 😏
Sorry for the rant everyone
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombThis is cheating!!! You can use a database for openings but NOT a chess engine. Better yet why not just play chess and use your own brain. It's much more fun knowing you really won and not your computer or someone else's opening. I have no problem with others studying openings from a database. I do have a problem with people following openings from some chess master in a game as far as they can. But I don't make the rules here at RHP.
This is the new feature which comes with Fritz 13 (my new toy). Basically it's a repository of engine analysis that you can search specific positions in. I have a game which is very early on and i'm experimenting with a line from the game Anish Giri v Levon Aronian 2012 (i've seen Aronian play this before but have taken this game to analyse with fritz to analysis that is technically theory. What is the consensus??
Originally posted by KingDavid403I think you miss understood what i meant. I analysed a GM game with an engine (which, if you read analysis on chessbase for example, you can be damn sure the analyst did the same thing). I never use an engine to play on RHP or anywhere else for that matter, I use an engine to try and learn, nothing more.
This is cheating!!! You can use a database for openings but NOT a chess engine. Better yet why not just play chess and use your own brain. It's much more fun knowing you really won and not your computer or someone else's opening. I have no problem with others studying openings from a database. I do have a problem with people following openings from some chess master in a game as far as they can. But I don't make the rules here at RHP.
Originally posted by KingDavid403One can make false distinctions, such as I have highlighted in the quoted post. On the other hand, one could engage in an informed discussion concerning the skills required in using databases effectively.
This is cheating!!! You can use a database for openings but NOT a chess engine. Better yet why not just play chess and use your own brain. It's much more fun knowing you really won and not your computer or someone else's opening. I have no problem with others studying openings from a database. I do have a problem with people following openin ...[text shortened]... from some chess master in a game as far as they can. But I don't make the rules here at RHP.
(Evidence that one does not fall prey to false distinctions strengthens one's claim that "Let's Check" is cheating.)
One place to begin an informed discussion concerning database use is offered in this blog post, and the three posts linked in the second paragraph: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2011/10/reading-annotations.html
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by MarinkatombAn excellent question to ask, and well worth asking.
Now, i can paste this into fritz and select 'Lets Check' and hey presto! I have analysis from Stockfish, Houdhini, Shredder, etc, etc, etc at my finger tips on the spot. Fantastic! Normally it'd take hours to get all this (not that i'd bother). But it's a conundrum, how much of this can i use? What if my opponent does the same thing? We're using analysis that is technically theory. What is the consensus??
My opinion is as follows:
Put your game in progress into the database, and follow as long as you care to.
But the minute you touch the "lets check", you have given into temptation. To me, the master you are are following is out of bounds until that game leaves the master's line.
To my mind, you can use the database, but you have to make your *own* judgement of the best move, based on what the past masters have done and how they faired. Otherwise you are letting the engine chose for you. If the master you are following made a mistake, and you don't spot it, then you should lose!
By all means, use this once the game is over to see if the master made a mistake (maybe he was in time trouble!)
And as an example,
Wolff, Patrick G 2500 -- Nickoloff, Bryon 2421: Move 16. Here Nickoloff played 16. ... Nxe3. In Game 9292710, User 595752 played 13. .... Bxf3, leaving me with the nasty choice of opening my kingside or going an exchange down.
I have only just got around to analysing this one (nasty difficult to use pgn from thematic tourney). Though my games are done, the tourney is still ongoing, so I will not comment more than to say that I might not have followed that line if I had had a box to check the master's play.
In my opinion, any analysis (by engine) once a game or tournament has started is forbidden, even if you are still in books and databases.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by gezzaI've re-read your post again!
In my opinion, any analysis (by engine) once a game or tournament has started is forbidden, even if you are still in books and databases.
Clearly the distinction here is that the analysis is done beforehand.
By my strict reading of the rules, you have purchased "research material" consisting of
analysis of master positions - you have a further assessment, just as if you had analysed
each of these positions yourself, before starting to play.
It sounds as if it is allowed - so you should be able to use it. Other opinions?
Note, based on the rules, not what you think the rules should be.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI'm sorry if I misunderstood what you're saying. The "let's check and Presto" button is where I see it as cheating by the rules of RHP in a in progress game. The way I've always understood the use of a database is you pick one opening of your choice by a GM and you can follow that opening as far as you can. In about 10 moves or less your off the database opening and on your own due to the response of your opponents moves.
I think you miss understood what i meant. I analysed a GM game with an engine (which, if you read analysis on chessbase for example, you can be damn sure the analyst did the same thing). I never use an engine to play on RHP or anywhere else for that matter, I use an engine to try and learn, nothing more.
I really don't know tho. I've never used a database or chess engine or books etc, and don't have any idea how too. And to I if I got pissed off in a game it really would be to much temptation to push the "Let's Check" button just this once. If you know what I mean.
And this is what I think happens way to much and people start pushing the "Let's check" button more than their making their own moves. Thus is born another engine user.