Originally posted by Wulebgr Databases and books are the reason for playing correspondence chess.
So, is most of your CC play spent with databases and books? Is your main reason gone once you reach a position where you have to think for yourself?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny about this. 🙂 Maybe I misunderstood your wording but it just sounds like a sad reason for playing chess if references are such a vital part of it.
Probably much more important to grasp the ideas and principles behind the opening. I found and continue to find, John Watson's books "Mastering the Chess Openings" quite helpful in that regard.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Databases and books are the reason for playing correspondence chess.
is it really? For me cc chess/RHP is just a casual hobby than anything else as playing OTB just would not be viable for me in practical terms. of course, you can't really control what aids are being used by the players, but I'm kind of puzzled as to why certain aides (I don't mean 'Analyse Board' here) as listed in RHP's ToS are allowed. I don't think it's a fair play any more.
Originally posted by Renars is it really? For me cc chess/RHP is just a casual hobby than anything else as playing OTB just would not be viable for me in practical terms. of course, you can't really control what aids are being used by the players, but I'm kind of puzzled as to why certain aides (I don't mean 'Analyse Board' here) as listed in RHP's ToS are allowed. I don't think it's a fair play any more.
it's fair as long as all parties agree over mutual terms. computer assistance is cheating here because we have all agreed we won't use them, but it's not cheating in official CC tournaments because everyone has agreed they have permission to use them.
Originally posted by Renars is it really? For me cc chess/RHP is just a casual hobby than anything else as playing OTB just would not be viable for me in practical terms. of course, you can't really control what aids are being used by the players, but I'm kind of puzzled as to why certain aides (I don't mean 'Analyse Board' here) as listed in RHP's ToS are allowed. I don't think it's a fair play any more.
I'm puzzled why anyone would want to use databases during games at all. Isn't the fun of playing chess using your own logic and imagination to outwit an opponent? It sounds like some games played here are decided by who has access to the biggest library.
Originally posted by Varenka So, is most of your CC play spent with databases and books?
No.
Perhaps I overstated the case. All the reasons for playing chess in any form continue to exist for correspondence, but the unique aspect of correspondence is that research is part of the game. Without the opportunities for practical research, I would play far fewer correspondence games.
The naive view expressed here and elsewhere that using databases means one is not relying upon knowledge, skill, logic, and imagination is untenable when one learns something of the process of using these aids. I use databases in a fraction of my games because it is too much work to use them all the time.
Originally posted by Double G I'm puzzled why anyone would want to use databases during games at all. Isn't the fun of playing chess using your own logic and imagination to outwit an opponent? It sounds like some games played here are decided by who has access to the biggest library.
The fun of playing chess is also improving and winning against higher quality opposition. And the reality of higher-level chess is that imagination counts for very little and knowledge of chess theory and chess patterns counts for very much when it comes to playing strength.
No one person [even if they are a master themselves] is so clever and innovative that they can compete with the army of masters who have built up chess theory over decades and decades.
Originally posted by SwissGambit The fun of playing chess is also improving and winning against higher quality opposition. And the reality of higher-level chess is that imagination counts for very little and knowledge of chess theory and chess patterns counts for very much when it comes to playing strength.
No one person [even if they are a master themselves] is so clever and innovat ...[text shortened]... ey can compete with the army of masters who have built up chess theory over decades and decades.
Fair point Swiss, I absolutely agree that there is a lot of fun in improving and gradually playing to higher standard. I also enjoy reading chess books when I have a spare moment, learning theory and patterns and practising tactics etc. However, I think that by using books and databases during a game I'm acting more as an intermediary between my opponent and the guy who wrote the book rather than being an active participant and having to draw on my own knowledge, experience, and (extremely limited) skill. I just find it more fun to figure things out for myself than look up what someone else did in a given situation.
Probably the best thing for me to do is write a book about chess and then I wouldn't have to worry about it. 😉
Originally posted by Double G I think that by using books and databases during a game I'm acting more as an intermediary between my opponent and the guy who wrote the book rather than being an active participant and having to draw on my own knowledge, experience, and (extremely limited) skill.
That's because you don't know how to use databases well.
Originally posted by Double G Fair point Swiss, I absolutely agree that there is a lot of fun in improving and gradually playing to higher standard. I also enjoy reading chess books when I have a spare moment, learning theory and patterns and practising tactics etc. However, I think that by using books and databases during a game I'm acting more as an intermediary between my opponent ...[text shortened]... thing for me to do is write a book about chess and then I wouldn't have to worry about it. 😉
Well, there's nothing wrong with keeping the game fun. It's not like we're getting rich or famous from it. Let each player decide how ambitious they want to be.
Originally posted by SwissGambit No one person [even if they are a master themselves] is so clever and innovative that they can compete with the army of masters who have built up chess theory over decades and decades.
So where does this take us? Is it my database versus your database?
This is a drawback of playing CC. Opening lines which are perfectly practical in a 1800 OTB tournament may get refuted by a 1200 rated player blindly using his 4 million game database. That's great for CC results, but poor for OTB practice.
Originally posted by Varenka So where does this take us? Is it my database versus your database?
This is a drawback of playing CC. Opening lines which are perfectly practical in a 1800 OTB tournament may get refuted by a 1200 rated player blindly using his 4 million game database. That's great for CC results, but poor for OTB practice.
1200s on here play just as bad as normal 1200s (or even worse) 😛
02 Feb '10 03:50
I do consult databases and opening books.
Back to Top