07 Jun 05
I'm relatively new here and was surprised that ALL games on this site are considered to be correspondence chess - thus allowing the use of chess books to determine moves - even during clan and tournament games.
It seems to me that internet chess is very different than correspondence chess. It has just as many, if not more similarities to live chess.
At minimum there should be "no book" tournaments on this site so we can also enjoy aspects of live chess matches. In that way our better chess players would also be recognized - not just the best game researchers.
07 Jun 05
Originally posted by mtn2topcorrespondence vs live: on the internet you can play games where you have timelimits just like o.t.b.(minutes per move) or correspondence style (days per move). My experience is that the live ones are dominated by timeouts because your opponent has someone "knock at the door" - not very satisfying.
I'm relatively new here and was surprised that ALL games on this site are considered to be correspondence chess - thus allowing the use of chess books to determine moves - even during clan and tournament games.
It seems to me that internet chess is very different than correspondence chess. It has just as many, if not more similarities to live chess.
...[text shortened]... that way our better chess players would also be recognized - not just the best game researchers.
books: my dealings with rhp's best players gives me the impression they do not need books to win against weaker players (under 2200).
07 Jun 05
Originally posted by flexmorebooks: my dealings with rhp's best players gives me the impression they do not need books to win against weaker players (under 2200).
correspondence vs live: on the internet you can play games where you have timelimits just like o.t.b.(minutes per move) or correspondence style (days per move). My experience is that the live ones are dominated by timeouts because your opponent has someone "knock at the door" - not very satisfying.
books: my dealings with rhp's best players gives me the impression they do not need books to win against weaker players (under 2200).
I agree with you Flex to a point...... Maybe because we are not giving them anything they have not seen or read about before..... Perhaps we need to find/modify lines to attack them with
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by mtn2topI'll give the example I always give in these discussions.
So what's the difference between painstakingly using books to play and a computer program, other than time?
There just seems to be something wrong in allowing any player such an advantage based on their resources.
I'm a Sicilian Dragon player. I play (normally I'm well below my normal amount right now) enough games on this site that I always have a Dragon game going on (with arrakis right now). Say I want to improve my Dragon play and I buy a book on the subject. If opening books aren't allowed when can I read it?
Opening books and databases have always been allowed in correspondance chess (back when it was by telegram or post). Why should that change now?
The difference between a database or opening book and an engine is the engine searches for the best move at the time whereas a database tells you what has been played before and for what result.
There are free game databases online (eg. www.chesslive.de) so really you aren't at a huge disadvantage because you don't own the latest mega database.
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by Blitz00http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2439
On chessbase.com they have and article about Alexandra Kosteniuk playing 20 or 15 correspondence masters and beating them all but two and drew with one I believe for a score of 2.5 to the correspondence masters I can remeber what her final score was but still pretty impressive.
17.5 - 2.5
With 15 wins, 5 draws and no losses to Alexandra Kosteniuk.
09 Jun 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI understand the precedent in correspondence chess for the use of books etc. - and I have no problem with that. There's much that can be learned in this manner.
I'll give the example I always give in these discussions.
I'm a Sicilian Dragon player. I play (normally I'm well below my normal amount right now) enough games on this site that I always have a Dragon game going on (with arrakis right now). Say I want to improve my Dragon play and I buy a book on the subject. If opening books aren't allowed when ca ...[text shortened]... e) so really you aren't at a huge disadvantage because you don't own the latest mega database.
Internet chess is different and should have rules and tournaments that also reflect the nuances of live play. The way the rules are for this site now, it seems to favor the chess researcher with adherence to correspondence chess rules only.
09 Jun 05
Originally posted by mtn2topRHP by it's nature is a correspondance chess site. The medium doesn't change that.
I understand the precedent in correspondence chess for the use of books etc. - and I have no problem with that. There's much that can be learned in this manner.
Internet chess is different and should have rules and tournaments that also reflect the nuances of live play. The way the rules are for this site now, it seems to favor the chess researcher with adherence to correspondence chess rules only.
09 Jun 05
Originally posted by mtn2topIs this a problem? I'd think it a desirable feature of a game that one's chances at winning increase with research and preparation.
The way the rules are for this site now, it seems to favor the chess researcher with adherence to correspondence chess rules only.
10 Jun 05
Originally posted by NyxieBeen there and done that. It's certainly different than RHP but more akin to speed chess. Yes, the conditions can be setup to reflect live match play.
Rhp is'nt exactly live chess. If you would like that try uchess.
Thanks for all the replies. It's interesting to see how this is perceived by RHP members. Looks like there will continue to be a dichotomy here between correspondence players (researchers) and live players to some degree with the "rules" giving a clear edge to the former.
We can only speculate as to who the best "live" chess players are here until a suitable tournament format is setup to prohibit chess research during the ensuing matches. Until then, it's a correspondence chess site.