Only Chess
27 Dec 05
09 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyPossible.
Do database users just want to pretend that GM level moves were their own creations?
As soon as someone makes a valid point one of the pro-secret-db usage people starts insulting or name calling.
It's continually twisted round to saying the suggestion is to disallow it....which is nothing to do with it at all.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI'm just after receiving the Modern Chess Openings 14 book today, so I probably won't be using databases too much.
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.
Its great that me using this encyclopedia of openings doesn't bother you, seeing as it is in book form. Its a strange position seeing as it is pretty much the exact same as a database (without the games with weaker moves), but hey, so long as you're kept happy.
D
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakIt doesn't BOTHER me, I would PREFER to know, but that's up to everyone at the present time though I forsee an option for a yes/no box in the future.
I'm just after receiving the Modern Chess Openings 14 book today, so I probably won't be using databases too much.
Its great that me using this encyclopedia of openings doesn't bother you, seeing as it is in book form. Its a strange position seeing as it is pretty much the exact same as a database (without the games with weaker moves), but hey, so long as you're kept happy.
D
Chess is supposed to be a friendly game so why all the animosity from some people? If it upset me that much I'd give it up.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOk, Lets go with the checkbox for database usage...
Possible.
As soon as someone makes a valid point one of the pro-secret-db usage people starts insulting or name calling.
It's continually twisted round to saying the suggestion is to disallow it....which is nothing to do with it at all.
so long as there is also a checkbox for people who don't wear any pants while making their moves.
Hey, its not illegal to do so, but I'd just like to know, and I believe the whole site should bow to my diva-like demands.
D
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAre you saying that me saying that you were ignorant of and clueless about the science of database usage was inaccurate?
As soon as someone makes a valid point one of the pro-secret-db usage people starts insulting or name calling.
You could be the most knowledgable person on the planet, but you've demonstrated your ignorance of database usage from the start.
D
09 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakI already explained that you could do that, no one would be forced to specify whether or not they used a database or not. However, specifying whether one is going to castle or not is not even close to being analogous to specifying whether one would use a database, and I've already explained why. Yes, this is not regular chess, it is correspondence chess, but the basic rules of the game stand and so does my argument.
You mean just like using a database?
D
Also, NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. How is your chess enjoyment threatened by checkboxes for database use which you do not even have to answer?
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakAs you've [or someone] has said, anyone can use a db. Maybe it takes a certain amount of skill compiling it but whether I know a lot about them or bugger all is not the point,it's not necessary to know much about them is it? And it's nothing to do with it being for me, I don't give a monkeys who uses them, I stated that I would prefer to know is all. All I am hearing is attempts at ridicule or comparing it to changing your socks or flipping pole vaultin' geesh.
Are you saying that me saying that you were ignorant of and clueless about the science of database usage was inaccurate?
You could be the most knowledgable person on the planet, but you've demonstrated your ignorance of database usage from the start.
D
09 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakNow here you are just committing the slippery slope fallacy. What you are suggesting is that providing optional checkboxes for database use would somehow necessitate a checkbox for everything else, like whether you are wearing pants while making moves. However, there is no logical basis for this slippery slope, so this is a moot point.
Ok, Lets go with the checkbox for database usage...
so long as there is also a checkbox for people who don't wear any pants while making their moves.
Hey, its not illegal to do so, but I'd just like to know, and I believe the whole site should bow to my diva-like demands.
D
Here's a link about your error: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo one would stop you from using a database and researching.
Research 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.
The reason I object to a checkbox is that it puts database use at a point where i ...[text shortened]... moves of that game. It's impossible to tell if they are playing from memory or a database.
Yes, database use would be discriminated against by some. But I don't see that as a problem since most people on correspondence chess sites, including me, actually use databases.
It's also true that it is impossible to tell whether one is playing from database, has a good memory or is just f****** good. But this is true for engine use too, as well as getting help from a friend and so on. Online chess has to rely on honesty. Such things cannot really be enforced. Some will cheat the system and themselves, but most will be sincere.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveRight here you show you don't know anything about using a database effectively. If it was just copying moves from a list then anyone could tangle with the best. It's not. There are top players out there who spend all their time acting as seconds for Super-GMs, a large portion of their time is spent doing exactly the same kind of research that Rag (I assume) and myself do.
As you've [or someone] has said, anyone can use a db. Maybe it takes a certain amount of skill compiling it but whether I know a lot about them or bugger all is not the point,it's not necessary to know much about them is it? And it's nothing to do with it being for me, I don't give a monkeys who uses them, I stated that I would prefer to know is all. ...[text shortened]... ttempts at ridicule or comparing it to changing your socks or flipping pole vaultin' geesh.
In all my games on RHP I believe I can say that I have won one game almost solely because of my database use Game 1456758.
You won't find that entire game in any database but what you will find (if your database is complete and up to date) is a single game where the tactics that I used in that game earns a win. I didn't just blindly follow the game, if I had I would have been sunk when my opponent veered from the previous game after I had sacced material leaving me on my own to convert (what I percieved) as a powerful attack.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWrong. There are telltale signs of engine use, do you think that the Game Mods just ban people at random? However, there is no difference in the play of someone following a database and someone with a very large memory and knowledge of the game.
It's also true that it is impossible to tell whether one is playing from database, has a good memory or is just f****** good. But this is true for engine use too, as well as getting help from a friend and so on. Online chess has to rely on honesty. Such things cannot really be enforced. Some will cheat the system and themselves, but most will be sincere.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyIf you wanna know whether someone uses a database and want to play a weaker non database using player why not look at their rating? That tells a lot more than whether he uses a database. In fact, I think the reason ratings were invented was for what you are saying right now. People want information on their opponents. There are poor players who are database users (i.e. me) This is reflected in my low rating. There are strong players who do not use databases, this is reflected in their rating. Just stop it, the checkbox is a terrible idea only created by strangelove to regain some illusion of dignity after he was almost laughed out of the thread when he called database use pathetic.
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 additio ...[text shortened]... ers who use databases and thus, it would give me the practice I need against solid lines.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't think so. Engine use, like database use, does not mean you are going to use either the whole game. A person can use an engine in a tough position for 3-4 moves and then play with his own ability. Then, maybe 20 moves later, he will use an engine to win the endgame. It is impossible to catch these sorts of people and so it cannot be enforced except for the worst offenders. Thus, we have an honesty based system.
Wrong. There are telltale signs of engine use, do you think that the Game Mods just ban people at random? However, there is no difference in the play of someone following a database and someone with a very large memory and knowledge of the game.