I don't agree with using databases or books either.
I also strongly disagree with using anything that has been designed by experts, thoroughly analysed by experts, thought upon by experts, and shown to be the among the best by experts.
I'm in the process of inventing something I like to call the whele. It'll make all types of transport easier. I'm just at the moment trying to figure out what shape it should be. I've already ruled out triangles and squares, but I'm pretty sure my next attempt using dodacahedrons will be a winner.
I also think that pole vaulting isn't really a sport like high jumping. Shouldn't the athletes just be using their own body, and not relying on a long stick to push them over the bar. I regard this as cheating, and will never recognise any pole vaulter as a sportsman. Sure they probably spent hours/weeks/years mastering the sport using the rules as defined by the ruling body, but in the long run, they're only cheating themselves, cos when they try the high jump, they'll never be able to do it without their aid.
I'm going to play both sports, but only in the pure sense of the way they were supposed to be played; with no aids whatsoever. I'm going to constantly bitch at all the polevaulters who use polls, and tell them how they're only fooling themselves and not really highjumping( ???????? ) One of these days, I'm going to manage to jump up as high as the mattress in the polevault.
; D
Ok, let me see if I can explain this to those of you who may still have some misunderstanding...
There are three very popular types of chess:
1. Correspondence - also called "Postal Chess", "Email Chess" or just "CC"
2. Over the Board Chess - also known as OTB -
3. Blitz - variations are "Speed Chess" and "Bullet Chess" - This can be played OTB or via the Internet
ALL 3 of them have very similiar rules. They're all Chess afterall, but there are some minor rule changes to each. I'm only going to address Correspondence Chess and I'm only going to address the one MAJOR rule change between Correspondence and the other types of chess.
You MAY USE BOOKS/DATABASES during play. That is an international rule agreed upon by FIDE/ICCF/USCF/etc etc....
Here's how it works - If you have any book that has any helpful chess info in it you may use that book while playing CC. No gray area there folks. You may use ANY book. Whether it's professionally written or whether it's hand scribbled notes you've accumulated over the years, You may USE IT.
You may use a chess database of games and their moves. Again, whether it's your own database or a professional piece of work, you may use a database. If it goes all the way to move 79 then you can continue using it all the way to that point in a game. There's no limit. You may also NOT use any of those things. If you just want to play using your noggin that's perfectly fine.
Does that make it easier to understand?
Also, nice work Ragnorak. 🙂
Originally posted by RagnorakA brilliant piece of sarcasm. Well done.
I don't agree with using databases or books either.
I also strongly disagree with using anything that has been designed by experts, thoroughly analysed by experts, thought upon by experts, and shown to be the among the best by experts.
I'm in the process of inventing something I like to call the whele. It'll make all types of transport easier. ...[text shortened]... of these days, I'm going to manage to jump up as high as the mattress in the polevault.
; D
i don't see a problem with books i may use books during my games, everybody wants to improve their chess but then everybody has their own preference on how this should be done.
some people may just use opening books to at least have some sort of equality going into the middle game, some may use books away from the board to study tactics, some may do this while actively playing games here on RHP and some may study their games after completion. whatever method suits you then fine use it.
you have to remember you the option of using books, etc is open to everybody. if you just want to play chess then just do that.
i think that any sports person from anysport who is trying to develop their game then great it shouldn't be pounched on if it comforms with the rules. obviously there are differences with cor chess as you can study things while playing, whereas in most other sports the training/studying is normally done away from competition
Have you guys NEVER beaten a computer before ??
Basically, they're crap. They have no idea. They calculate is about all. Kasparov et all would NEVER lose to them on a Correspondence site. Under time pressure your blunder check may let you down, but not when you've got HOURS for one move. Hmmmm, unless you're crap yourself of course, heh heh.
The problem with playing computers is that they bore the hell out of you. And unlike humans, you can rely on them to "prove it" if they are winning. If you suspect your opponent is using a computer, just chuck the game in your own computer, and see how many of their moves your programme would have played. If it's ALL OF THEM, then it's likely your opponent is cheating, or they're the world's most boring player ever.
Or both.
Testing your play against a computer can certainly curb your impulsivity and make you more aware of tactical possibilities, but with days per move at your diposal it's not a guaranteed loss for you. One good thing you can learn from a computer though, is how to defend a worse position. Squirmy bastards!
Originally posted by RagnorakUsing database and books is a part where you really learn chess, chesspositions and culture it is also funny. It is a shame i dont have time to do it!
I don't agree with using databases or books either.
I also strongly disagree with using anything that has been designed by experts, thoroughly analysed by experts, thought upon by experts, and shown to be the among the best by experts.
I'm in the process of inventing something I like to call the whele. It'll make all types of transport easier. ...[text shortened]... of these days, I'm going to manage to jump up as high as the mattress in the polevault.
; D
I sometimes play in computer mode at playchess.com(in the past i was very active), settingup you computer, loking for new lines, watching stronger machines to save their moves in your database, modifiying your book, adding games to your book it is really a nice expirience.
You learn lines and positions, the plans for both sides and what lines are good and bad.
It is the same in human mode, if you have the time and discipline.
If you like this you will dominate the positions you play and reach to a good middle game or ending.
Originally posted by KefRobYeah! It's just a game!!! Why study? Reminds me of a basketball player working on their shooting. What fun is that?? When I play, half my shots don't even hit the rim. Why should I care? It's just a game!!!
Has anyone ever tried playing just because they fancy a game of chess with someone? Its just a game!!!
I was involved in computers entering tournaments and one of the first incidents was back in 1972 (I think that was the date, not sure). Anyways we invited Hans Berliner who was the World Correspondence Chess Champ, and was also writing a chess program for one of the Universities.
Back then nobody could even refuse to play against the computer and most people wanted to cause it was an easy point. For example, the computer would run thru it's program and always make what it determined to be the strongest move... so it would ALWAYS play a check! Heheheh, Bishop from e7 plays to b4 check! Then after White plays pawn to c3, the computer would see it needed to move the bisop and play it back to e7! What fun!
However, I had to inform Hans that his computer "was cheating"! "WHAT!?", he says, "How can the computer cheat?" So, as a tournament director I read the rule to him from the TD book. It clearly states that in over-the-board play, neither opponent is allowed to look at any chess material, especially not a chess opening database. And then I told him (knowing something about his program) that his computer was looing up moves in it's database! It was not 'figuring our each move'!
Shortly after that USCF made the rule that players could refuse to play computers in tournaments... then later on they banned all computers from human play.
Arrakis
Originally posted by VandalizerActualy Im sure kasparov would get his ass kicked even more in a correspondence chess games with deep blue. There's just no way a human can think as fast and accurate as a computer. In correspondence chess the computer would be calculating 24hours a day. this is immposible for a human to do and the difference in strength would be even bigger. Also the computer will be calculating like 30-40 moves deep this is also immposible even for kasparov.
Have you guys NEVER beaten a computer before ??
Basically, they're crap. They have no idea. They calculate is about all. Kasparov et all would NEVER lose to them on a Correspondence site. Under time pressure your blunder check may let you down, but not when you've got HOURS for one move. Hmmmm, unless you're crap yourself of course, heh heh.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI don't agree.
Actualy Im sure kasparov would get his ass kicked even more in a correspondence chess games with deep blue. There's just no way a human can think as fast and accurate as a computer. In correspondence chess the computer would be calculating 24hours a day. this is immposible for a human to do and the difference in strength would be even bigger. Al ...[text shortened]... he computer will be calculating like 30-40 moves deep this is also immposible even for kasparov.
I think that Kasparov would do better against Deep Blue in Correspondence. Check out some of his analysis from the CC game, Kasparov v The World.
http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/move58.asp
He works it out like a computer, with the added bonus of his genius human vision.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakHe could have done that analysis with fritz (he does use fritz to analyse his games)
I don't agree.
I think that Kasparov would do better against Deep Blue in Correspondence. Check out some of his analysis from the CC game, Kasparov v The World.
http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/move58.asp
He works it out like a computer, with the added bonus of his genius human vision.
D
Even if he did that himself he will just not be able to do it as fast as deep blue and deep blue does not get tired.
I do think players like kramnik or karpov would have a better chance against deep blue because they are very possitional players and this works very well against computers because in possitional games its not so much about concrete analysis.