Originally posted by ngv76
Hmm..maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I see the
logic
here. What's the practical difference between using a database to see
what a grandmaster did in a certain position, and seeking "advice or
assistance concerning the play"?
I think the basic difference is that the grandmaster game is a matter
of public record, whereas private advice is available only to you.
Originally posted by Danforth
Anyway books and database are just good for the very first moves of
a game... for the rest you have to use your brain and you instinct!! 🙂
Yan
Given the size of the databases, though, I imagine that very often
they'll be able to carry you much, much farther than the first few
moves of a game. This seems like an essential distinction between
books and databases, which (arguably) the rules of CC ought to take
into account.
What do people say about using a chess program without an engine (that is, the computer cannot
play back)? I will import my FENs into this empty program and work out moves myself. It is no
different (except by convenience) than setting up a real board and playing out moves. What is the
community's view on this?
Originally posted by nemesioI think this has come up before, and the consensus was that using
What do people say about using a chess program without an
engine (that is, the computer cannot
play back)? I will import my FENs into this empty program and work
out moves myself. It is no
different (except by convenience) than setting up a real board and
playing out moves. What is the
community's view on this?
a 'board' program is fine. My understanding is youy can use pretty
much anything other than a chess engine or another person.
Yeah, I find it very convenient to use an electronic board. The fact
that it's easy to get the FEN value for your games means that I can try
out what I think will be best play for all of my moves before I actually
make them. Since I started doing that I've started winning a lot more
games. 🙂
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireI use SCID at work (On an NT Workstation, which I'm SURE I'm not
Yeah, I find it very convenient to use an electronic board. The fact
that it's easy to get the FEN value for your games means that I can try
out what I think will be best play for all of my moves before I actually
make them. Since I started doing that I've started winning a lot more
games. 🙂
-mike
allowed to do... but...) I'll often email myself the PGN file of important
games and do some (computer-less!!!) analysis and record variations
that I have in mind. I don't do it often, but when I do it really helps.
It's HARD to remember your plans in 50 different games from day to
day! I use SCID's database for opening studies, but my conscience
won't let me use it once I'm out of "book" knowledge. That doesn't
mean it's *wrong*, just that I don't like to do it.
Rein
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599534
I use books in the opening. I know this is allowed in postal chess, so
why not? This is the perfect place for me to learn openings, my main
goal of being at RHP is to omprove my opening play so I can improve
my game for OTB tournament play. I do agree that computers are not
ethical, and who do you cheat but yourself? I guess a data-base, even
though it is put up on a computer is an electronic book and should be
ok
Borrowing from mick jagger, "i get no satisfacton" from researching
and following chess games played at www.chessbase.com. Playing
internet chess under OTB conditions is the best way to improve your
OTB play. The key to chess improvement is to deeply analyze chess
middlegame positions and training the mind to brainstorm as it
discovers the many possibilities that are lurking. There is only limited
improvement from taking the shortcut of being a good
chess "researcher" and certainly no satisfaction.
😀
SNL
I know this is allowed in postal chess, soI think most correspondence chess are trying to improve their OTB tournament play. And personally, I tend to think of opening analysis as a tedious and overwhelming. I think the idea of allowing opening books in correspondence chess helps to "sugar-coat" this rather tedious aspect of chess study.
why not? This is the perfect place for me to learn openings, my main
goal of being at RHP is to omprove my opening play so I can improve
my game for OTB tournament play.
So if I'm refering to the books to learn what the lines are AND trying to study and understand the positions as I go, then I'm working to build my "repertoirè" in a way that's going make a difference.
I think it's pretty common knowledge that memorizing opening lines is not really helpful. An opening line might be 15 moves deep and leave the player with a queenside majority, and the player neither recognizes or understands how to take advantage of this fact, then he probably would have been better off on move 7 playing a move that actually made sense to him that wasn't in the books.
As far as databases...If you're following a database 50 moves into a game, either it's a main line of a major opening, or your opponent has the same database http://www.redhotpawn.com/images/forums/sml-wink.gif
It's still the same battle of opening theory that's gone on for hundreds of years. As soon as one side comes up with an improvement in a line, it will be up to the other side to try to come up with an improvement. I think the provision to allow databases but not engines makes sense.
So books and databases seem like a win/win situation since both players get a change to learn and improve their game.