Only Chess
27 Dec 05
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Ragnorakditto.
I 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.
If I were required to list the databases I employ, or the books I've consulted, I might be here all day. I haven't played "completely on my own" since 1975. That was when I discovered the existence of chess books, and read my first one: 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev. I bought the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings one volume at a time 1996-1998, and have used them since. In 1999, I started using databases of my own games, and those that came with Chessmaster 7000 to improve. For the past couple of years, I have downloaded every edition of The Week in Chess almost as soon as it becomes available. I've also scoured the internet collecting databases of games, so I have the games of the Texas Girl's Championship and the Scottish Correspondence League in addition to everything available from ChessBase. As I've now played close to 25,000 games online, I have those games as well. Friday, I watched former World Champion Tigran Petrosian play three blitz games online at the playchess server. These games are now in my database, along with a couple from Nigel Short from the previous day.
Perhaps all this should be in my profile so opponents know what their up against.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by WulebgrHow do we know you don't have some book that you haven't listed?
ditto.
If I were required to list the databases I employ, or the books I've consulted, I might be here all day. I haven't played "completely on my own" since 1975. That was when I discovered the existence of chess books, and read my first one: 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev. I bought the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings one v ...[text shortened]... day.
Perhaps all this should be in my profile so opponents know what their up against.
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dpressnellYou may know that I do. I won't list them all. I have more than 150 chess books, excluding those that exist as ebooks on my computer. I'm likely to buy 1-5 more chess books in the next three months.
How do we know you don't have some book that you haven't listed?
My main folder for databases is currently 5.43 GB. Ebooks, including Chess Informant Opening Monographs are in other folders.
When I set up a position on my wooden set on the table, my cat likes to crawl among the pieces. Sometimes, she moves a piece. Does this count as "outside assistance"?
08 Jan 06
Irrespestive of why anyone would want to know and granted that it's allowed etc etc, why if you are stating candidly here that you use databases do you dislike the idea so much of a simple statement saying "I do/don't use em" No other details.
It's not the fact of them being used that is surprising, it's the fact that people would wish it not to be disclosed that they use them.
And so vehemently too.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThat I play correspondence is itself a statement that I use databases unless I state otherwise.
Irrespestive of why anyone would want to know and granted that it's allowed etc etc, why if you are stating candidly here that you use databases do you dislike the idea so much of a simple statement saying "I do/don't use em" No other details.
This thread has morphed from a discussion of a badly flawed survey into discussion of a horribly flawed proposal for a check box. I have no objection to playing those who refuse to use databases, but to require a statement from those who do violates the spirit and purpose of correspondence play: the search for truth in chess.
We have debated the merits of database use incessantly, as in Thread 35012. Let's all learn something about database use by discussing how we use databases, a conversation I tried to begin in Thread 34246. The rules are clear, as are the ethics by now. Let's discuss the skills of database use.
09 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOkay, do wrestlers have to check a box indicating whether they will use their left arm? Do football players need to check a box indicating they will head the ball if seen fit? Do track runners need to check a box claiming they will high tech low weight spikes? Do cricket players check a box saying they will only use the highest quality bats? Do swimmers check a box saying they will shave their body?
Irrespestive of why anyone would want to know and granted that it's allowed etc etc, why if you are stating candidly here that you use databases do you dislike the idea so much of a simple statement saying "I do/don't use em" No other details.
It's not the fact of them being used that is surprising, it's the fact that people would wish it not to be disclosed that they use them.
And so vehemently too.
NO!!!
Correspondence is based on the fact that you will use a database. PERIOD
I know it confers you a slight advantage but you are in the minority if you do not use a database. No other sport or game requires that you list legal equipment that may confer you an advantage over your opponent. How is this different in chess?! Let it go, man!
*Breath in, Breathe out*
Ahhh, wasn't that better?
Sorry Wulebgr, I just needed to vent a little.
However I do find it more comforting sometimes to use a move that a favorite player of mine (maybe Kasparov, or Morozevich) or a specialist in the particular opening (Fischer/Najdorf, Botvinnik/Dutch)
even if it is a middlegame move in which the majority of games chooses a different move.
09 Jan 06
1 edit
As it is, database use is assumed. However, clearly, some object to this, so what is so wrong with the checkbox idea? This would allow the few who choose not to use databases the option of playing with people who have made the same choice and thus, they would not be at a disadvantage. Everyone else could continue playing as they always have.
In addition, there is no rule that database users have to only play database users. Likewise, those who do not use databases would not be forced to play only those who do not use databases. Such a checkbox would simply make selecting an appropriate opponent easier. It would not damage the current situation for any segment of RHP players. In fact, those who object to stating whether they use databases would simply have the option of not participating and not checking either the "I use databases" or "I don't use databases" checkbox. (though doing this may make finding games more difficult) Database use could be just like any other field for finding an appropriate game, like time, rating and color.
So if no one's experience on RHP is threatened by the checkbox proposal, yet many could benefit from it, why the opposition? Do database users just want to pretend that GM level moves were their own creations? I don't understand. I use a database and I would not mind this idea. It would allow me to find others who use databases and thus, it would give me the practice I need against solid lines.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI only want to play people who don't castle. Castling was invented by the French and I hate those cheese eaters. I want a checkbox for castling.
As it is, database use is assumed. However, clearly, some object to this, so what is so wrong with the checkbox idea? This would allow the few who choose not to use databases the option of playing with people who have made the same choice and thus, they would not be at a disadvantage. Everyone else could continue playing as they always have.
In additi ...[text shortened]... thers who use databases and thus, it would give me the practice I need against solid lines.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI hope you realize how ridiculous your analogy is. Castling is an essential strategic, positional and tactical element of chess. It has been clearly stated in the rules of the game for centuries.
I only want to play people who don't castle. Castling was invented by the French and I hate those cheese eaters. I want a checkbox for castling.
Database use is an additional element outside of the game's basic rules and I don't see how giving the option of stating if one uses a database or not would harm your experience. This is my main question for you, how is your experience and chess enjoyment threatened by checkboxes for database use which you do not even have to answer?
Furthermore, even if your absurd analogy was actually made into a similar checkbox proposal, why would that matter to you so much? All us sane people would just ignore it, not specifying whether we castle or not. (since it depends on the circumstances)
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyResearch has been an integral part of correspondence chess ever since it first started. Knowing how to effectively research is as much a part of correspondence chess as knowing how the horsie moves. If you don't like that then you shouldn't be playing correspondence chess.
I hope you realize how ridiculous your analogy is. Castling is an essential strategic, positional and tactical element of chess. It has been clearly stated in the rules of the game for centuries.
Database use is an additional element outside of the game's basic rules and I don't see how giving the option of stating if one uses a database or not would ...[text shortened]... st ignore it, not specifying whether we castle or not. (since it depends on the circumstances)
The reason I object to a checkbox is that it puts database use at a point where it can be discriminated against. It wouldn't affect who I play against as I play tournaments/sieges/clan games and friendlies/teaching games against those that request them. However, some (stupid) players would view the ratings of those that declare themselves to be non-database players as more important.
Also, what is to stop me (or someone else who isn't publicly a database user) declaring they don't use databases? Many players have prodigious memories and could quite easily remember Anand v Kasparov at Linares in 1995 and play 25 moves of that game. It's impossible to tell if they are playing from memory or a database.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskysee, this is where you're wrong. learn the rules. this is not regular chess, this is correspondence chess.
...Database use is an additional element outside of the game's basic rules...
to make a point:
this is not regular chess, this is correspondence chess.
this is not regular chess, this is correspondence chess.
this is not regular chess, this is correspondence chess.
now, go write that on a chalkboard somewhere a few hundred times.
