Originally posted by DeepThoughtAs said before, in correspondence play, there is no alternative than to allow for use of books and databases. Otherwise you would never be able to read anything during months, especially not games and analysis on the openings that you want to learn (and most likely are playing in your ongoing games). So, turn the issue around and say that using books and databases is highly recommended!
If it is allowed in the rules of correspondence chess then it is not cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules in the activity you are involved in, not the rules in a different one. You may think the rule is wrong, in which case you can criticise it as much as you like, but you should not accuse people of cheating for doing something the rules allow.
do what you like.. but when we get to a OTB game and you have to leave your books and databases at home.. and I play 1.c3 what you going to do then.. i repeat theres nothing wrong in studying openings/theory thats the best thing to do.. i've been studying the french defense now I know exactly what blacks intensions are I have created a few moves that arnt in the opening book but still ok moves.. ive also study a few other openings.. kings indian defense was last one I study and sice i've been this I've produced good results. I believe in learning the hart of chess.. not a sequence of moves. as it dont take a genius to work out this is not the correct way to learn a game..
Originally posted by CenterNutLOL. I never brought up play strength, knowing full well I am better than you ratings wise. And I don't use databases either so its not an excuse. And its not because I play opponents weaker than me either.
look kid if you can truely believe this is not a form of cheating (cos its in the rules) then continue as you're. I never said leanring opening thory is cheating.. all im saying is using addtional resources to aid your game (tells me how weak player you're). and for your info KID. I wont be asking for any help in these forums as I know how to use search ...[text shortened]... engine because they use databases too. it would just make there search for a move bit quicker..
Originally posted by CenterNutCheater
do what you like.. but when we get to a OTB game and you have to leave your books and databases at home.. and I play 1.c3 what you going to do then.. i repeat theres nothing wrong in studying openings/theory thats the best thing to do.. i've been studying the french defense now I know exactly what blacks intensions are I have created a few moves that arnt ...[text shortened]... nce of moves. as it dont take a genius to work out this is not the correct way to learn a game..
this was posted in another link but after reading it i'd like to add these paragrahs to this thread..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4576383.stm
Every opening in chess has been analysed to the nth degree by humans, so the computer uses an "openings book" to avoid having to think about any of its moves in a conventional opening. That it has to think after two of my moves suggests I have done something silly.
(my last comment about uisng chess engines)
but more importent:
But the computer's database could win the day, after all, he concludes. "It is as if you could take all of your books into an exam."
^^Thats a comment made by a scientist^^
this is soo true and what I was saying in a post I made about this is like taking your course books into an exam.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22304
Originally posted by CenterNutA database or opening book will not win you a game. Either they will pop you out into a middle game position in which, if you used the opening book blindly, you won't have a clue about, or your opponent will divert from theory early and you're on your own anyway. A computer plays at a GM level; you do not.
this was posted in another link but after reading it i'd like to add these paragrahs to this thread..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4576383.stm
Every opening in chess has been analysed to the nth degree by humans, so the comput ...[text shortened]... am.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22304
THEY ARE ALLOWED.
Originally posted by CenterNutWhy don't you just create your own chess site, then you can ban the use of books & databases. I suggest you go to another site that doesn't allow the use of books & databases.
this was posted in another link but after reading it i'd like to add these paragrahs to this thread..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4576383.stm
Every opening in chess has been analysed to the nth degree by humans, so the computer uses an "openings book" to avoid having to think about any of its moves in a conventional opening. That it has to t ...[text shortened]... g your course books into an exam.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22304
We beat this issue to death in the thread "How to learn and not cheat," and that wasn't the first time. However, I still have not seen a clear discussion of the ethics of database use, aside from the notion that any "outside help" should be forbidden. I also sense that ignorance continues to run rampant regarding how databases use is an element of chess skill.
I believe the practice of database use is ethical or I would desist. Nevertheless, I use them infrequently (for the record, I have not employed them in my current game against CenterNut). Database use does not permit a player to avoid calculation and planning. In fact, it may increase the demands.
If you would like, take a look at Game Game 843496. This game was my first here at RHP that I failed to win. After each player moved twice, we reached a position that I see rarely. It might have been a good time for me to tap into the databases--with 40+ games going on six sites, I simply cannot find the time to use databases in every game. I did not use these aids in this game. But, if I had, I would have learned the following from my main db:
There are 5100 games that reached this position in the db.
17 different white moves have been played. The most frequent are
3.Bf4 1592 games, white scored 60%.
3.c4 1448 games, white scored 64%.
3.g3 826 games, white scored 65%.
3.e3 665 games, white scored 63%.
I played 3.c4, a move that is neither the most frequent, nor that has the highest scoring percentage among the most common moves. Had I used the database, I still might have chosen this move, but some data analysis would have been needed.
Looking through a database of my own games--mostly internet blitz games--reveals that I've faced this particular position in 43 previous games. My overall scoring percentage from this position has been 65%: 25 wins, 7 draws, 12 losses. 3.c4 has been my first choice by an overwhelming margin, but I have played 1.g3 frequently, and 3.Bg5 (the fifth most common move) several times. I also played the rare 3.Nbd2 once. I have played neither 3.e3 nor 3.Bf4.
Had I been using my databases for this game, it likely would not have changed my play.
If you become a slave to databases--using them more as an aid to playing than as an aid to learning--it will hinder your performance in OTB games.
I suspect some correspondence games are a struggle to see who has the biggest and best database, at least for part of the game. But everyone with a web connection has equal access to a database of ~2.6 million games, and they all have equal and easy access to the latest master games thanks to Mark Crowther (founder of The Week in Chess).
The real struggle still comes down to how database information gets used, and that is a matter of chess strength more than anything else.
Consider that four moves into a game of chess, there are 958,605,819 possible positions. Compare this number to the 2,520,912 games in my largest database, and you'll see that a database is no substitute for chess skill, although it may supplement it. Now consider that the average game runs 37+ moves, and that no more than a few dozen of my 25,000+ online games were still "in book"; at move 18. (See http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~flab/chess/statistics-positions.html regarding the mathematical complexity of chess.)
Too much of the time for study of most chess players is squandered on learning openings, perhaps because the information is easier to organize. Father Ruy Lopez created a table of variations for the opening that now bears his name in 1561, but systematic study of the middle game remains elusive yet today. Far more important than database use, and far more beneficial, is the memorization of basic tactical motifs, including checkmate patterns of the sort you can find at http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/wulebgr/checklist.htm
For volume of games, nothing beats chessbase online. For only high quality of games, there is New in Chess online. Everyone with a web connection has access to these. Size is not the only issue. Some players spend many hours developing specialized opening databases (called books) and refining a repertoire. These hours are an exercise of chess skill to build tools for further training, and for correspondence play. If I have a better database than my opponent, it is because I have used my chess skill to build it. Still, there are those who lack access to books and databases. Kon Grivainis became World Correspondence Chess Federation Champion largely without access to the databases his opponents were using. He employed specific strategies and opening systems that were designed to thwart his opponents' database help. Still, he was not entirely without outside materials, especially knowledge and records of some of the previous games of his opponents. But none of this answers the issue of ethics.
The issue of ethics must address the game of chess itself. As games go, chess is almost the exception in its reliance on skill alone. There are no dice, no cards, no hidden pieces. Chess would seem a good game for a purist.
Chess skill is not innate, nor can it be defined in terms of a single dimension. Chess requires calculation and intuition, memorization of patterns and application of principles. The help a player can derive from databases is limited by his or her skill, but using database records also requires development of additional skills unneeded in over-the-board play. Chess is played many ways: one on one with no supplements, consultation games (multiple players arriving at consensus, or voting), human + computer teams against other human + computer (advanced chess--see http://www.chessbase.com/events/events.asp?pid=133), human vs. machine, and correspondence, among others. The game does not remain static, but changes and grows. How well a player does in any given format reflects how good a player is at that format; chess skill is not an absolute.
At another site where I play, and where there are active forums, one of the top players started a thread looking for help regarding SCID (a popular free database program).
In his post, he mentioned that he uses three primary databases: 1) games from the past five years; 2) games from the past fifteen years; and 3) all games. I played a game against him that I lost; he played a novelty (a move not in my database) on move 24. Up to that point we were following a game played by two super-GMs ten years ago. He improved upon Michael Adams' play.
The information he posted, and his novelty both reinforce the point I've been making that use of chess databases is an aspect of chess skill. He is laboring to construct databases that help him identify fashions and trends among opening choices. What does he do with this information? Does he play the latest ideas? Does he look for abandoned lines that are still sound? Either of these strategies would be just that--plans for using available chess knowledge. Suppose you are following a game that resulted in a win for the color you have. Were the moves sound? You still need a lot of understanding to decide when and how far to follow a previously trodden path.
(with a few edits, most of this post can be found in the thread mentioned at the top.)
As I have mentioned before, anyone interested in some experiments regarding database use, I'm game. I would also like to see more discussion of how databases are used, rather than whether they could or should be used.
Ah, leave it to Deepthought to bring the whole thing into focus. Well said. I guess if you go to the track to bet on a horse and you read all those tout sheets giving their past records, jockeys, etc, that would be considered cheating because it brings in information not directly apparent to the betting public. As Deepthought said, by definition "cheating" is breaking the rules of the game. The rules of correspondence chess allow databases and books, ergo it can't be cheating. How you feel about it might be different, but that is irrelevant to the game we are playing on RHP. My wife thinks I'm "cheating" by using all those tout sheets. She picks the horses by the colors of the jockey's outfits. And she wins more than me!
Originally posted by CenterNutMaybe this analogy is not so bad. But you are not taking into account that there are different types of chess, as well as different types of exams. I would compare OTB chess to an oral or written exam which can last up to several hours, but not days, weeks or months, and where you are not allowed to use your course books or other aids (although in some exams aids like dictionaries or calculators *are* allowed). Correspondence chess is more like writing a thesis. You work on it over a long period, and you are not only allowed, but even expected to use books. In a thesis, you have to show that you are able to find relevant information, understand it and draw your own conclusions. That's very much like in correspondence chess. I don't think you'll get far if you just do the part of finding relevant information, but fail to understand the moves, because in most games you will reach a point where you have to play your own moves, and if you have no idea what you have been doing, you'll be lost. So it's still your own game, just like it's your own thesis even though you quote other people.
this is soo true and what I was saying in a post I made about this is like taking your course books into an exam.
in soccer, the ball can't be hit out of play and the game continue, a throw in takes place
in indoor 5 aside, people rugularly hit off a wall.
in soccer, you can kick a ball as high as you want
in indoor, it is a regular rule that you can't hit the ball over a certain height
the shape of the goals is also different
.........................................
my point
over the board competition chess and correspondence chess are completely different in relation to this
they have been like this long before computers ever existed.
people would refer to old books and past games to try and see what way they should play
I can understand centernut's concerns. He feels it's unfair to compete against someone using databases. Maybe he should arrange that beforehand that no one uses databases, then the problem is solved, unless of course someone is peeking into his opening book. I think if you checked, most of the higher rated players use databases, at least on occasion. I don't have the time to use them consistently, but will check a book or database when i feel i'm in a situation i haven't seen before. Once I followed a database right down to a resignation against a higher ranked player. Once, I had the feeling once that my opponent and I were following the same database, right down to a draw! Then it gets futile. Sometimes I'll get into an opening, say the Trompowsky, in which I feel my opponent has a dozen books or a specialized database, then i look for a move that's solid, but not obvious, just to get him out. Several times this has led to my losing at least some of the games, but what can you do. I believe some of the higher rated players have even done their own analysis of an opening line and use RHP as a test. These are the most formidable players because they have done their own original thinking and have reams of analysis they may have worked out for years, analysis that you can't find anywhere else except on their computer hard drives. But, i guess hard work earns its own reward.
Ive been wondering about making an opening book.
It just seems like too much trouble. I could be playing a game during that time. I will look into databases for a game if the opening has some oddity. I dont need a data base to tell me I want to play 1...e5 after 1.e4.
I enjoy studying some games that contain the odd opening or an opening im not strong in. My games never seem to stay in the book for very long though and I enjoy that part. Leaving the book and treading into new waters.
My Over The Board play has grown quite a bit since I started playing here. I give credit to studying the games Im playing instead of just playing them. Databases and CC chess have been very good to my OTB play.
Originally posted by buddy2What separates us from them is the ability to analyse and *remember* every line. And positional and strategic sense, plus vision, plus, plus, plus. I don't have the ability or time to analyse so I view a database as a series of suggested moves made by players in the past. What I see as a weakness of many databases (or the ones I've tried) is that often you don't know the quality of the player or the opposition you're referring to! When faced with choices of moves, I take the one that looks to me to be the most solid or that appeals to me in terms of my own style of play. They certainly don't replace reading or studying or positional sense..
I believe some of the higher rated players have even done their own analysis of an opening line and use RHP as a test. These are the most formidable players because they have done their own original thinking and have reams of analysis they may have worked out for years, analysis that you can't find anywhere else except on their computer hard drives. But, i guess hard work earns its own reward.
That said, I'm experimenting with some openings that are almost totally off the book. Hairy, but testing.
Wulebgr gets a rec BTW