Originally posted by odyssiusIt would seem to me that you are taking the term chess databases too far. I don't think the "databases" that most have in mind include every possible move in a game. Perhaps, like I use sometimes, a book of openings. As far as an "empty victory" goes.....why would you not use any means at your disposal......Minus letting a chess computer play for you?
Why do people use chess databases and so on when playing on this site? Surely this defeats the whole purpose of one on one and kills any enjoyment as any victory would be an empty one.🙂
I like studying through databases for general research and education. However, I find their use on this site is rather limited. No matter what lines are played, everyone pretty much tries to get "out of book" so that whoever has the greater research materials doesn't have an advantage. Also, databases (which usually concentrate on master and grandmaster games) don't tell you why the moves not used are bad. I got my head handed to me in a recent game when I decided to try the QGA (an opening I have no experience in) and walked blindly into what I now know is a well known 5-move trap. Since all the grandmasters know this trap and avoid it, it wasn't in my databases at all.
In the end, all a database will do is let you know what others have tried in their games and what results they achieved. Since you can't control how your opponent will respond to any particular move, you have no sure bet that the game you are playing will develop like ones you are researching. So, I think others will agree, databases are best for seeing the "lay of the land" or standard positions that develop from certain lines. You still have to decide if that type of position is what you want to play through and what moves will best serve your specific game.
--SmittyG
On another point, the site is all about the honor system. You have to trust that your opponent is not getting specific move advice from friends or computer engines. Thus, if you want to play games with no reference materials whatsoever, start some open games and note in the game title that you want to play with no outside references or help. Whoever accepts the game will know this up front and you can get the types of games you like. I would have no problem playing under those conditions. Others wouldn't either. Those who would be uncomfortable giving up their databases and books, could just not accept the game.
It's all good.
--SmittyG
Originally posted by Cheshire CatIf you use that logic then how would u feel if someone was sitting opposite you looking in an openings book whilst playing you? Surely books are for study and games are for knowledge acquired through experience and that study?
It would seem to me that you are taking the term chess databases too far. I don't think the "databases" that most have in mind include every possible move in a game. Perhaps, like I use sometimes, a book of openings. As far as an "empty victory" goes.....why would you not use any means at your disposal......Minus letting a chess computer play for you?
Originally posted by SerendipityHonestly, I would be just fine with it. The game would still come down to who has the most skill. If my opponent then develops greater skill, all the better for future game. 😀
If you use that logic then how would u feel if someone was sitting opposite you looking in an openings book whilst playing you? Surely books are for study and games are for knowledge acquired through experience and that study?
(This issue has probably been discussed here dozens of times, so perhaps it is impossible to say anything new, but if not for anything else, at least to increase my posts number, I'd like to point out the following thoughts: )
In over-the-board games rules usually do not allow using books/any other help, so at least I would be a bit annoyed if my opponent used such. But if books/databases weren't allowed in correspondence (and e.g. RHP) games, it would mean that I could never read a chess book as I always have some games going on. Of course the rule could be set to something like "do not use book to seek help for just that position that you have in the game", but I'm afraid that wouldn't be so easy. And, if I happen to move 1. d4 and have to wait weeks for the opponent's response, should that mean I'm not allowed to study d4-openings during that time??
Originally posted by RabellaGood point. 😀
(This issue has probably been discussed here dozens of times, so perhaps it is impossible to say anything new, but if not for anything else, at least to increase my posts number, I'd like to point out the following thoughts: )
In over-the-board games rules usually do not allow using books/any other help, so at least I would be a bit annoyed if my opponen ...[text shortened]... opponent's response, should that mean I'm not allowed to study d4-openings during that time??
Originally posted by Rabelladont agree. when you are custommed to playing the game, dont need a book. besides its by trying different moves that especially arent in books that you really can improve yourself.
(This issue has probably been discussed here dozens of times, so perhaps it is impossible to say anything new, but if not for anything else, at least to increase my posts number, I'd like to point out the following thoughts: )
In over-the-board games rules usually do not allow using books/any other help, so at least I would be a bit annoyed if my opponen ...[text shortened]... opponent's response, should that mean I'm not allowed to study d4-openings during that time??
Originally posted by RmXThat's a surprising remark... Even GMs are daily consulting databases. There's nothing wrong with THAT! Before electronic databases existed, most players, amteurs, clubplayers & IM/GMs, used an opening encyclopaedia (MCO, ECO...). So, what the heck is wrong with modern databases? I just don't understand the objections.
dont agree. when you are custommed to playing the game, dont need a book. besides its by trying different moves that especially arent in books that you really can improve yourself.
Cheerio!
Jan
Originally posted by RmXInteresting. Then I propose that those who don't use books and databases have an unfair advantage and should be made to use them! 😵
dont agree. when you are custommed to playing the game, dont need a book. besides its by trying different moves that especially arent in books that you really can improve yourself.
Seriously, though, one can try one's own moves or use book moves, and one can learn or not either way. If you use books, you won't get better at chess without trying to understand the moves in them. If you make your own moves, you won't get better if you don't try to determine which moves may have been better. In short, one's learning and growing understanding of the game are independent from the method one uses in choosing opening moves. Sooner or later, every game reaches a middle-game, and some actually get to an end-game. No one has remarkable chess success just because they have MCO or some other compendium. In fact, this is a silly topic and I shouldn't bother posting 😛😀😛
I've just returned to playing chess after many, many years off the circuit. I have tried my best to research (via internet) the latest trends and brush up on openings as I had forgotten most outright (a look at some of my games will clearly show this). If I was told I was not allowed to refer back to this information I would struggle to get into games, as once I'm safely past the opening pitfalls, my previous experience then comes into play.
I for one will be spending much time looking at specific openings.
I use a database (namely, www.chessgames.com) for comparing to other games AFTER a game is done. This is usually if I have gotten into a terrible mess during a game or - most often, sadly - during an opening. My memory is totally useless if I try to memorize "good ideas" or "tricks" beforehand, but if I have actually played a game and gotten a feel of right and wrong about a certain set of moves, the post mortem-analysis stays with me. Most particularly this goes for piece exchanges during openings.
Seeing how others have played before is also useless if one is unable to see the general idea. My ELO rating is not impressive, and trying to mimic the playing style of an Alekhine, Karpov or Kasparov (or a favorite, Capablanca,) would run out of steam rather fast...