I don't know if I think ahead very much. I play by my guts ( "This looks good, that one doesn't" ).
As an example: If I have a chance to put my knight ate a safe spot, invading his sphere of influence, I do it without much counting.
When I do count ahead , I find my opponent doing other things that I didn't think of anyway.
1977, and on average, no more than 2 moves. but I'll go as deep as I have to when the position calls for it. although after 4 moves it usually seems quite pointless, and I can remember only one move against bbarr where the 5th move made a slight difference. most of my errors happen because I underestimate something 1-2 moves deep, not because I didn't look deep enough to see it.
endgames and highly forced lines are completely different of course.
Originally posted by wormwood for example, you can search the fritz database for different kinds of endgames. there are probably others as well.
OK, but when someone speaks of being "out of endgame database", that doesn't really sound like what they mean, at least to me. With that kind of search, you could never be "in" anything in the first place.
Originally posted by incandenza OK, but when someone speaks of being "out of endgame database", that doesn't really sound like what they mean, at least to me. With that kind of search, you could never be "in" anything in the first place.
if you have fritz, open the database, then the endgame tab. all different categories are there, and most endgames ever played would fall under them. the db isn't that big though, but I'm sure there are better ones.
endgames are not like openings & middlegame positions. correct plans and theory are far more important than being in exactly the same position. when you find something similar, the chances are the same idea will work in your position.
Well, all I'm saying is that the original statement sounded a bit odd to me. Apparently you see a different meaning to it, which is fine.
I'm just bringing it up because there seemed to be some confusion on the issue last time it was discussed.
In any case, the most common meaning of "endgame database" *is* tablebase, which is definitely not allowed. I'm pointing this out in case anyone reading doesn't realize this--not necessarily the original poster, who it's possible could have meant something different.
Originally posted by incandenza Well, all I'm saying is that the original statement sounded a bit odd to me. Apparently you see a different meaning to it, which is fine.
I'm just bringing it up because there seemed to be some confusion on the issue last time it was discussed.
In any case, the most common meaning of "endgame database" *is* tablebase, which is definitely not allowe ...[text shortened]... necessarily the original poster, who it's possible could have meant something different.
when we talk about chess, a tablebase simply isn't a database. in programming there's no relevant difference, but in chess the difference is critical. that's why nobody who knows anything about chess databases would ever call tablebase a database. only newbies will do that. it's simply impractical and misleading.
and skeeter's been around so long that it would be quite impossible that she didn't know the difference by now.
Also, the Wikipedia entry for "endgame database" redirects to tablebase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_database
In the first page or so of Google results, I can't find a single mention of the phrase "endgame database" that doesn't refer to tablebases. In fact, I can't find any reference at all that uses it in your preferred meaning of a Chessbase-style database with a few notes about endgame types.
rating and moves you think ahead
10 Dec '07 15:01
Back to Top