Only Chess
27 Dec 05
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by RahimKWhatever people run through on the analyse board is still coming from their own thoughts so no I'm not bothered about knowing that. Same with setting it up on a board.
Yes I use a db/ books and I will continue doing so. If someone asks me then, I say I use them. I assume everyone used db when i'm playing them.
What do you think about the analyse board feature?
Wouldn't you like to know if they use that during the game or use a real board during the game?
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI
Whatever people run through on the analyse board is still coming from their own thoughts so no I'm not bothered about knowing that. Same with setting it up on a board.
I've read Nimzowitsch's book My System, which could confer me an advantage over someone who hasn't read it. In fact, If I played and happened to win it could very well be due to the information on strategy I learned from that book! Should I have to post this in my profile that I read the book. Should I also post every book I've ever read on chess? What about the calculus courses I took in high school that help me strength my calculation skills on the chess board?
If you ask me after the game if used a database I will tell you I did, to confirm that information for you, I have no reason to hide that. But, I think it is unreasonable for people to mention in their profile every single database/book they have or may consult during their games. Also, databases exist in differenet sizes and qualities, some databases may be extremely useful and helpful and others not so much. Should I also have to elucidate whether I used the standard Fritz 9 openings book, or whether I used the Nalimov Tablebases to win the endgame all in my profile? No, it would be ludicrous to expect every Redhotpawn user to list all the chess literature they have ever encountered. Rather it is much simpler for you to ask me in a quick message whether that move I made was my own low level concoction or a bona fide GM move from a database. I do believe there is nothing wrong with someone knowing whether I used databases or not, however I see it as higly inpractical to make every declare all the chess literature they use or may use. It also completely fair for Correspondence Chess users to use databases because Cchess is understood to involve database use, database use is in fact expected, very much that the two square pawn move is expected in OTB chess. For example, in pre-1600 times pawns only moved one square always. The new two square move was introduced and soon became an expected chess move. Similarly, Correspondence Chess is a variation of OTB chess and it is expected that people use databases, although by no means is it required.
II
Correspondence chess is a very serious affair to many people, perhaps not on Redhotpawn per se, but the World Correspondence Chess Championships involve people who have dedicated their lives to the art of correspondence chess and take it very seriously. The skill of using a database and analyzing positions for very long times is one taken up with much rigor by many people, although of course, there are other who use it as practice for OTB chess, which is perfectly fine, but I do take offense at one the previous posts which claimed correspondence chess to be a half a step up from chasing a raccoon.
III
Database use is not allowed in Cchess because of the difficulties in monitoring the use of databases. Rather, Cchess was created partially because a new form of chess which rather than rely on OTB quick thinking seeks perfection in chess. Databases are allowed not because it is too hard to enforce a prohibition of it, but rather because Databases are essential to the production of extremely high quality chess. If you really want to study high quality games, don't study Kasparov or Topalov, study the Correspondence chess world champions for although they may not have the natural chess talent of the classical OTB champions, they have the luxury of time and can produce amazingly beautiful chess. So, the point of all this is that database use is not unfair because databases are essential to achieving the main goal of Correspondence chess in general, high quality chess.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidI agree with almost everything you say but Nalimov Tablebases are NOT allowed in correspondence chess as they are not compilations of games but computer generated solutions to every possible position with 5 or 6 pieces.
I
I've read Nimzowitsch's book My System, which could confer me an advantage over someone who hasn't read it. In fact, If I played and happened to win it could very well be due to the information on strategy I learned from that book! Should I have to post this in my profile that I read the book. Should I also post every book I've ever read on chess? Wh ...[text shortened]... ssential to achieving the main goal of Correspondence chess in general, high quality chess.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidAll I am saying for the final time is that I would prefer to know if my opponent Is or IS NOT using a database. Books, analyse boards, spare home boards, mathematical studies I don't care to know about.
I
I've read Nimzowitsch's book My System, which could confer me an advantage over someone who hasn't read it. In fact, If I played and happened to win it could very well be due to the information on strategy I learned from that book! Should I have to post this in my profile that I read the book. Should I also post every book I've ever read on chess?
If you are so willing to tell your opponent AFTER the game, why not a simple yes or no to whether you use a database before. What I find hard to understand is why those who use them, or at least many of them, are SO against anyone being informed beforehand.
The only answer I keep on getting is "assume everyone does".....brilliant, I wish I'd thought of that meself.
Nobody is saying its cheating or disallowed, simply that some of us would like to know one way or the other.
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThe world's not all about you, Junior. If you get your way and there's a check mark for people using databases and books, the next clown can demand a check mark for people playing the Scandinavian. Where will it end?? The point being databases are allowed, period. You are not entitled to specific information regarding another player's strategies and preferences and database use is both. You may put in your profile you don't want to play people who use databases, but it's purely voluntary as to whether another player wants to accede to your wishes. It's basically NOYFB what other people use; if I feel like using a MagicEightBall to decide on my moves, that's my business.
All I am saying for the final time is that I would prefer to know if my opponent Is or IS NOT using a database. Books, analyse boards, spare home boards, mathematical studies I don't care to know about.
If you are so willing to tell your opponent AFTER the game, why not a simple yes or no to whether you use a database before. What I find hard to unde its cheating or disallowed, simply that some of us would like to know one way or the other.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYet another brilliant repetition of "it's allowed so bollox to you". Very clever, junior.
The world's not all about you, Junior. If you get your way and there's a check mark for people using databases and books, the next clown can demand a check mark for people playing the Scandinavian. Where will it end?? The point being databases are allowed, period. You are not entitled to specific information regarding another player's strategies and pref ...[text shortened]... ple use; if I feel like using a MagicEightBall to decide on my moves, that's my business.
08 Jan 06
"What about the calculus courses I took in high school that help me strength my calculation skills on the chess board? "
ROFL. I've taken advanced math courses and I can tell you, it DOES NOTHING for your chess calculations. Ches calculations are mostly visual memory anyway, you don't use advanced mathemtical concepts, certainly nothing past basic arithmetic.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOkay to answer your question directly there are a couple of answers.
All I am saying for the final time is that I would prefer to know if my opponent Is or IS NOT using a database. Books, analyse boards, spare home boards, mathematical studies I don't care to know about.
If you are so willing to tell your opponent AFTER the game, why not a simple yes or no to whether you use a database before. What I find hard to unde ...[text shortened]... its cheating or disallowed, simply that some of us would like to know one way or the other.
One I already touched upon involves the fact that it is very impractical because some people may use a very small database or very large one or one with more 1.d4 games or whatever. Also, If I have to declare whether I use databases or not, then it logically follows that I also list any middlegame tomes, like My System I may consult when playing a move. The point is that listing database use with a simple check box is not feasible because so many other factors are important in determining the effect of the database on the game.
My second point is that if you know that I do or do not use databases, then you could make specifically unorthodox moves to defeat the use of my database, and database use is like I said a genuine part of Cchess. It would be somewhat analagous to me declaring to you that I have memorized several variations of the Bogo-indian defense and then you could play moves to avoid that. And what if you don't use database but follow chess tournaments and use moves from those tournaments, wouldn't that confer an advantage similar to databases yet not technically database usage. All I'm saying is that making players declare whether they use database is like making them declare that they are specialist piece players, or pawn pusher giving away information which could be useful to the opponent, secondly, it is higly impractical to have every player declare whether they use databases or not because the database may or may not be used in any one game and the specifics necessary to know whether the database even was effective in any particular game would be too numerous to expect people to be forced to provide information on their database. I am not against people knowing it beforehand that i use databases and many people post on their profiles whether they do, but you can't force people to declare their intentions on a particular match beyond that they will follow the rules. If you would like to know one way or the other that is fine, but you should understand when some would like to not tell you one way or the other. I would also like to know what openings my opponent is an expert in and if I really deem it necessary I might ask him (I asked an opponent once whether he was well versed in the dragon or whether it seems I just played weak moves for example), but I can't claim any right on my part or obligation on his part to tell me.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, not allowed. I'm glad you mentioned that. I was going to but you beat me to the punch.
I agree with almost everything you say but Nalimov Tablebases are NOT allowed in correspondence chess as they are not compilations of games but computer generated solutions to every possible position with 5 or 6 pieces.
08 Jan 06
How did this all start.
Did you lose a game and your upset about it ?
and knowing that your opponent used a database would ease your pain?
Is that why you want to know? So, if you lose to them, you can take some comfort in the fact that he was using a db and you were not?
Or if you beat them, then you can be like, O he used a db and I still beat him?
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKq.Did you lose a game and you're upset about it ?
How did this all start.
Did you lose a game and your upset about it ?
and knowing that your opponent used a database would ease your pain?
Is that why you want to know? So, if you lose to them, you can take some comfort in the fact that he was using a db and you were not?
Or if you beat them, then you can be like, O he used a db and I still beat him?
a.I lose loads of games, I sometimes get upset.[but not depressed or suicidal]
Probably by non-users of databases just as much as users, how would I know?.
q.and knowing that your opponent used a database would ease your pain?
a.unlikely but maybe a little bit, maybe not.
I don't think that is the reason this thread started though.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI use databases in maybe 10-30% of my games. Would you have me continually check and uncheck the tick box according to whether or not I was about to use a database to assist me in choosing a move? The fact that you don't care about books is mind-boggling, and it shows that you are still completely clueless about the science of database use.
What I find hard to understand is why those who use them, or at least many of them, are SO against anyone being informed beforehand.
As a side motion, I'd like everybody who DOESN'T open with 1. d4 or 1. e4 to declare it before the game.
D
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakDon't twist my words I said I didn't care to know if people used books. [Yes I have read a few in the past but I don't have them any more and if I did I wouldn't refer to them while I was playing]
The fact that you don't care about books is mind-boggling, and it shows that you are still completely clueless about the science of database use.
As a side motion, I'd like everybody who DOESN'T open with 1. d4 or 1. e4 to declare it before the game.
D
Your side motion is on apparent immediately the game begins....unlike db usage.
Thanks for the name; I'll add "clueless" to my profile.