Originally posted by dixondo
When I first started using this site (in June) I asked in this forum whether chess Opening Guides were OK. The answer was yes - so when I am not sure of an opening or need guidance I use an e Book that comes with Book Up or Chess Opening Wizard. You put in the moves as the opening progresses and if gives you the most popular replies with an indication of w ...[text shortened]... really do more than keep blatant cheating away. But what an incredibly dull way to play chess.
wow, I disagree with almost everything you have said.
what you are referring to is probably rybka.ctg, which is the opening book
of rybka, and not the engine itself. Of course it doesn't go on as long as you want, otherwise chess should have been solved, and believe me, theory up to 17 moves is probably pretty average for current opening theory, and it's completely normal, expected, and is the way it should be, after hundreds of years of opening analysis made by many greats.
The opening book type you mention is actually a specific database only designed in a way that you could make better use for openings. It doesn't consist of moves of rybka exclusively of course, that is not possible. It probably has what all other opening books has: again, hundreds of years of theory developed, which probably includes lines generated by rybka with a 0.1% or something.
How do you think modern novelties are developed in opening theory? A bunch of seconds of grandmasters analyse openings with the computers to death, of course combining it with their positional understanding, and interactive analysis. This is how it's done probably since the Kasparov era, if you read any of Kasparov's recent books, you'll see a computer line almost every page, and that's how it goes for all grandmasters today. Actually this is how opening books are written today. Any modern opening book that doesn't involve intense computer analysis today would be worthless, believe me.
if the computers weren't involved in opening theory, I bet half of the modern sicilian theory would not exist today. And I don't understand why it is completely normal using a printed opening book like Modern Chess Openings or Nunn's Chess Openings (the first one generally being referred to as "the modern player's bible" ), but using absolutely the same thing, only a lot convenient, improved and user friendly version, the .ctg format or any electronical databse, is totally wrong. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
You have a vast sea of studies, developed with so much hard work from the grandmasters of the past and today, and why would you want to ignore it? If you want to be serious about correspondence and your openings, I think you should put all this romanticism behind you and try to use all the convenient tools you can.
I have developed a strict opening repertuare which I stick with today, and I prepared my repertuare in a .ctg format (the same format of the Rybka opening tree you're talking about), and I can tell you, it makes all the difference in the world, and so much easier for me to memorize or study the openings I'm trying to learn and use. If I would stick with opening "guides" consisting of printed books or general guideline texts every time; after finishing a real time game, trying to find out where I stepped out of my repertuare in a wrong way, or what move I should have made etc would take probably 10x more time and effort. This way, I simply put the pgn into chessbase and walk through my electronical opening book. Rybka .ctg, or Fritz .ctg, is the same category, they are opening books, only in electronical format, and there's no rational reason to forbid them. I bet kramnik's seconds have bought Rybka III .ctg the day it went out for their preperation for the coming WC match against Anand, since it has many interesting novelties in several critical lines.
and using the databases in a wrong way is a completely different matter.