Originally posted by truthinpositionsI agree, I don't so much as own a chess book, never mind databases etc...I'de rather win or lose on my own.
I do not understand why ppl cheat with nothing to gain. Saying that why do some player cheat and is very open about it but they don't see it as cheating. Some players profile says "I use a opening database to play the openings but nothing else." This is cheating in my opinon and maybe I am wrong but I know I do not play the 1st 20 moves of any my ...[text shortened]... 2 moves and is forced to try and recover from playing like themself. What do you guys think?
Per the rules of this site (and as far as I know, longstanding correspondence chess tradition), consulting books and opening databases and previously-played human games IS NOT cheating. That is the definition of this community. If a player wants to restrict himself further for some purpose such as learning openings or training for OTB play, or a greater sense of challenge and accomplishment, then that player will gain certain benefits and enjoyment. But that player is not acting more nobly than others who are legally using those tools.
Originally posted by truthinpositionsYou are wrong. However, it is because you view this the same way you view over the board chess. This is correspondence chess, and your ignorance doesn't make us cheaters. Please educate yourself.
Some players profile says "I use a opening database to play the openings but nothing else." This is cheating in my opinon and maybe I am wrong
...
What do you guys think?
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess
Structure of correspondence chess
Correspondence chess differs from over-the-board play in several respects. While players in OTB chess generally play one at a time (an exception being a simultaneous exhibition), correspondence players often have several games going at once. Tournament games are played concurrently, and some players may have more than one hundred games continuing at the same time.
Time limits in correspondence play are usually between 30 and 60 days for every 10 moves (plus transmission time in postal chess). This time allows for far deeper calculation, meaning that blunders can be less frequent. Certain forms of assistance, including books, chess databases and sometimes chess programs, are often allowed. Books and databases are almost universally acceptable, but organizations vary as to whether chess engine use is permitted. Hobby players new to the distinctive appeal of correspondence chess sometimes shun all assistance.
Read the ToS (terms of service) for this site to find out that:
1. Databases + books are allowed
2. endgame tablebases are not
3. Human assistance is not allowed
4. assistance from a program (i.e. fritz) is not allowed.
Originally posted by zebanoyes in the old sprit of corr. chess books and sometime human friends would help (which were allowed) to develop there own natural abilites. Since the forefathers of corr. chess powerful eng and databases were formed and the learning process stop and ppl started to see games as 0.70 better for me and thats that. I am educated on correspondence chess and I am not against the use of books(note I listed databases and I dont use books but thats me). I am here to play other humans and get a practical feel for the game to find my opening style, weakness, etc but if I wanted some computers database to crush me with move i will never see by human players otb then I might as well go get a cold one and pop on fritz.
You are wrong. However, it is because you view this the same way you view over the board chess. This is correspondence chess, and your ignorance doesn't make us cheaters. Please educate yourself.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess
Structure of correspondence chess
Correspondence chess differs from over-the-board play in several r ...[text shortened]...
3. Human assistance is not allowed
4. assistance from a program (i.e. fritz) is not allowed.
Originally posted by truthinpositionsQuite frankly thats just a silly assumption. Databases are not that extensive and for instance in one Sicilian game today I play 6. Rg1 and was essentially out of database on move 6! Even if I do play more db moves, who knows if they are good enough to win? I tried that for 16 moves against Cludi, and he is crushing me. My first four games ever against him are about to end and my record will be a dismal +0 -3 =1.
yes in the old sprit of corr. chess books and sometime human friends would help (which were allowed) to develop there own natural abilites. Since the forefathers of corr. chess powerful eng and databases were formed and the learning process stop and ppl started to see games as 0.70 better for me and thats that. I am educated on correspondence ches ...[text shortened]... e i will never see by human players otb then I might as well go get a cold one and pop on fritz.
Now Cludi is an exceptional player, but lesser players have done the same to me. We simply don't make GM moves for 20+ moves on end, and the problem with DBs is that one line may have won for 10 straight years before someone found the refutation and it so quickly went out of style that it still shows up as a 55% winning line for white.
Originally posted by zebanoyou play the sicillian? for someone who profess a love for the french!
Quite frankly thats just a silly assumption. Databases are not that extensive and for instance in one Sicilian game today I play 6. Rg1 and was essentially out of database on move 6! Even if I do play more db moves, who knows if they are good enough to win? I tried that for 16 moves against Cludi, and he is crushing me. My first four games ever against him ar ...[text shortened]... ion and it so quickly went out of style that it still shows up as a 55% winning line for white.
Why is that? is it because the sicillian is the most popular opening and by stats gives black the most winning chances.
1 edit
Originally posted by truthinpositionsIf you read my post carefully, you will note that I was white.
you play the sicillian? for someone who profess a love for the french!
Why is that? is it because the sicillian is the most popular opening and by stats gives black the most winning chances.
However....
I play four black openings against 1. e4
The French about 75% of the time
The Petrov about 10% of the time
The Schivishnikov Sicillian about 10% of the time
The Najdorf Sicillian about 5% of the time.
I have over 100 games, it's mearly for some middlegame variety.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is true. I usually take openings as far out of book as I can very quickly in the game, simply because I am better in complicated positions than book players.
I was disappointed to find out that books and databases are allowed in corr. chess (I am generally an OTB player and am playing on RHP to help get back in tournament shape) but it will not limit my playing. Because I'm on OTB player it seems like cheating to me, but when in Rome...
I know at several USCF tournaments I was almost disqualified because I had developed a habit of writing down my move plans before playing them, sometimes 3-4 moves in advance. Apparently in OTB play this is considered the same as using a book or engine.
Originally posted by zebanoafter looking over your games you play more c5 then you give credit for. I played the same opening for 5years without ever changing and I only changed today(see profile) because my trainer said that my opening is going against my style so now I am trying everything under the moon. I played every possible caro known to man for spice and changing middlegame plans vs. 1e4 and the slav vs. 1d4 via 1...c6 move order. Now I am a otb expert trying to make master I must get a feel for other positions.
If you read my post carefully, you will note that I was white.
However....
I play four black openings against 1. e4
The French about 75% of the time
The Petrov about 10% of the time
The Schivishnikov Sicillian about 10% of the time
The Najdorf Sicillian about 5% of the time.
I have over 100 games, it's mearly for some middlegame variety.
1 edit
Originally posted by truthinpositionsIt's possible, however if you just look at my recent games, I usually try and keep consistent across an entire tournament what I play. I decided to play 1. c5 in a recent split that just started so that could factor in.
after looking over your games you play more c5 then you give credit for. I played the same opening for 5years without ever changing and I only changed today(see profile) because my trainer said that my opening is going against my style so now I am trying everything under the moon. I played every possible caro known to man for spice and changing mid ...[text shortened]... move order. Now I am a otb expert trying to make master I must get a feel for other positions.
A more objective, if outdated look at my repertoire is here:
http://www.chessatwork.com/gamesexplorer/index.php?movelist=e2e4&flip=0&co=b&u=193748&c=-1
Variety is the spice of life, when I need to win I will go for the french, but playing many positions is more fun than playing few.
Originally posted by truthinpositionsGood use of abbrevs there, but I think it would be pretty difficult for someone using opening databases (something appropriately used in correspondence) to play 20 moves in book against someone who isn't. I've tried, and as soon as you get a Qe2 or something crazy you're on your own regardless. So, if you don't like the book move don't use it. As a novice, I use the database here on RHP to understand openings but there are always choices and deviations which require practice and knowledge to execute properly. 20 moves is exaggerating; to avoid such variations, play a "non-Kasparov" move to throw off your opponent.
I do not understand why ppl cheat with nothing to gain. Saying that why do some player cheat and is very open about it but they don't see it as cheating. Some players profile says "I use a opening database to play the openings but nothing else." This is cheating in my opinon and maybe I am wrong but I know I do not play the 1st 20 moves of any my ...[text shortened]... 2 moves and is forced to try and recover from playing like themself. What do you guys think?
Originally posted by allosterythat means you are playing a inferior move if it not in the database or a forgotten move and you are in the same pickle fighting from behind.
Good use of abbrevs there, but I think it would be pretty difficult for someone using opening databases (something appropriately used in correspondence) to play 20 moves in book against someone who isn't. I've tried, and as soon as you get a Qe2 or something crazy you're on your own regardless. So, if you don't like the book move don't use it. As a novi ...[text shortened]... erating; to avoid such variations, play a "non-Kasparov" move to throw off your opponent.