CC vrs OTB openings

Originally posted by Mctayto
..CC gives you this opportunity to in effect cheat

but there are the majority that simply use their grey cells albeit you can tell by our ratings 🙁

no, and no. 1) playing by the rules is not cheating. 2) you can't tell by their rating if somebody uses db or books. not even if it was 2400+.

I went shortly over 1600 not using them. now I do check out what kind of ideas have been played If I'm trying out a new opening. still I don't see any positive influence on my rating, but I do learn more. in fact, I feel I've learned a lot after I went 1600+ for the first time, but the new knowledge doesn't really seem to have any effect on my rating. I guess the things I learn are not the things that keep me on my current level. I suspect dropping pieces do.

most people who are serious with CC probably do use db and books. at least from time to time. it's an essential part of the game.

Originally posted by Mctayto
I play all chess as OTB and reckon anyone that uses more than between their ears for CC is cheating
Where is the difference between the help of a computer or book or any kind of assistance
Use only your own knowledge and if you wish to study a game after it has been completed then fair enough but during a game CHEATING

This site needs a scoring system similar to recs, but for the awful posts that deserve reprimand rather than approbation. The present instance is a case in point. We have debated endlessly whether database use is appropriate, such as in Thread 18298, for example.

Database use is an element in chess skill; engine use is cheating. However, some correspondence organizations permit engine use as well, as strong correspondence players have nothing to fear. Add three days to a human's think time, and the skill increases dramatically. Add three days to a chess engine's time, and the depth of view increases marginally.

As I said in Thread 18298

Originally posted by Wulebgr
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 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 as you can see, a choice and 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.

Look also at Thread 35486 and Thread 35012.

If you wish a productive discussion of database use, instead of this ignorant claim that it somehow is unfair, or a substitute for skill, I recommend Thread 34246, which began:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There have been frequent forum threads debating the rules and/or the ethics of database use. However, I've seen precious little discussion of how such resources benefit the player. Given that database use is an aspect of chess skill, rather than a substitute for it, I'd appreciate some feedback on how to develop that skill.

How do successful correspondence players use books and databases?
I don't have a set pattern, as I'm not certain I've found the most effective, nor the most satisfying approach. Some of those I've tried:

[b]ECO Lines. I look for the most favorable lines in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. When lines branch, some may end with substantial advantage or slight advantage for my opponent, while others end in unclear. I'll pick the moves ending in unclear over slight, and slight over substantial. Transpositions often make the work following this method much harder. Chess Informant Opening Monographs take this method to a higher level.

Percentages. After selecting my candidate moves, I'll use ChessBase to find the winning percentages and average ELO change for each move. Generally the winning percentages are sufficient, but the ELO averages offer caution. There are many scholastic games that skew the percentages in certain lines, such as the Fried Liver Attack. One need only defend accurately to defeat the FLA, but white wins ~70% in ChessBase online.

Opening Books (ChessBase). Engines, such as Fritz, come with an opening book to guide their moves. These books can be viewed as a type of carefully pruned database. I've also created my own books from particular selections of games. For example, a book created with only decisive games between players with an average rating above 2300 allows a more refined approach to playing the percentages. These books can be edited with evaluations, and in time, can incorporate the results of a lot of intense study. Certain opponents with lots of available games have books named for them so I can play their worst openings in our battles.

Opening Books (printed). In a few games last summer, I slavishly followed the recommendations of Larry Kaufman in The Chess Advantage in Black and White. This practice introduced the Meran system to my repertoire against the Queen's Gambit. At other times, I've used other opening manuals to research the best lines in new openings I'm trying to learn, as well as old ones I'm trying to perfect. My stack of books on the Sveshnikov and Kalashnikov Sicilian becames well-worn from this practice (and lots of post-it notes stick out with text like "GM-aspirant vs. Wulebgr, Golden Knights 1998"😉.

Often, of course, I'll use several of these methods together. That's when the serious research begins.[/b]

Originally posted by zebano
Do you alter what you play at all? Perhaps you play a line thats not so sharp OTB when you don't have access books/databses?


The only reason I ask is I remember Tim Taylor saying something about this in a book I was perusing. Strangely enough, I play the sharpest openings OTB and play the more positional openings in CC. My theory is that even though I d ...[text shortened]... , I just play whatever strikes my fancy, but in CC tournaments I have been much more coutious.

I sometimes play schwindles at otb games, not here.

Originally posted by Testrider
I sometimes play schwindles at otb games, not here.

By schwindles, I assume you mean traps. What I refer to are gambits or ultra sharp lines (i.e. fried liver attack). These are simply highly tactical openings or openings where I gain one advantage by sacraficing a pawn. In particular, I play the King's gambit.