Only Chess
27 Dec 05
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAs far as I know there aren't any correspondence sites that don't allow database use. Maybe that's because correspondence has been played since the days of telegrams and letters by pony and even then it was allowed?
Where are the online chess sites that don't allow use of databases?
None that I know of, mainly because it would be unenforcible according to the answers to my enquiries.
Not talking about real-time chess.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI fail to see the point of your question?
Where are the online chess sites that don't allow use of databases?
None that I know of, mainly because it would be unenforcible according to the answers to my enquiries.
Not talking about real-time chess.
Say all CC chess sites allow you to use a database? I never heard of any that doesn't.
So what were you getting at?
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou may note he said your actions were idiotic. He didn't say you were an idiot. 😲😲🙄
I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.
Are you a hypocrite or just dumb?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35486&page=3
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou already know, seeing as everybody signed that they agreed with this when they signed up. If you really need to know, then just assume that EVERYBODY is using databases, and your problem is solved.
What do you have against people knowing? You obviously don't object to people knowing you rely on databases.
Why not a tick box, as suggested in another thread in the site ideas forum?
I think you should play an opening from a database, to give you some modicum of understanding of what's involved. As I see it now, you're like somebody who doesn't believe in castling and who believes that everybody who does normally castle, should have it stated somewhere in their profile. Its ridiculous. (Note, I'm calling your position ridiculous, not you 🙄)
FROM TOS:
"3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
(b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
(c) You may not threaten or harass other users of this Service."
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZcorrespondence.
And there are two types of chess. Correspondance [polevault] and Classical/Rapid/Blitz/etc. [high jump]. We play correspondance here, if you don't want to use a database or play against people who are using them go play the right type of chess.
EDIT: Also, if you aren't complaining why the hell are you still trying to argue?
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOk, how about a number of questions when you register:
I already said [b]"Im not complaining"
Is noone else allowed a different opinion to you on this?
I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.
There are plenty of non-database-using players here who would like to know in advance. Not to know what is allowed, or possible, but the facts.
What do you have against peo ...[text shortened]... ly on databases.
Why not a tick box, as suggested in another thread in the site ideas forum?[/b]
Do you use databases?
Are you an engine user?
Do you make use of the en passant rule?
Do you prefer to play white?
Will you only play players who don't know how the knight moves?
Do you use a pole?
Would you prefer a nice game of checkers?
Do you like your eggs fried or scrambled?
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by lauseyDo you use databases? - Yes Mysql And MSSql
Ok, how about a number of questions when you register:
Do you use databases?
Are you an engine user?
Do you make use of the en passant rule?
Do you prefer to play white?
Will you only play players who don't know how the knight moves?
Do you use a pole?
Would you prefer a nice game of checkers?
Do you like your eggs fried or scrambled?
Are you an engine user? - I have a car yes
Do you make use of the en passant rule? - Only when its sneaky and people forget what it is...
Do you prefer to play white? - I prefer to play erratically
Will you only play players who don't know how the knight moves? - I don`t so fair is fair
Do you use a pole? - only when I can`t reach
Would you prefer a nice game of checkers? - to what?
Do you like your eggs fried or scrambled? - fertilized.
04 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ambienceYou've addressed this to me, but I don't see the relevance of what you said to my posts.
So much pretentiousness and snobbery!
Why is everyone having a go at the opener of this thread? The question was asked in a civil manner and, hey presto, some geezer with strong emotions straight away blasted him. The continued strong emotions against him, and those that wish to hear his viewpoint, suggests that the pro-database users are ignorant!
My post wasn't directed at the opener of the thread.
Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
My assertion that Dr Strangelove was ignorant about database usage when he called all users pathetic, has been shown to be 100% true, as demonstrated in the good Doctors own words.
Statement of fact and pretentiousness should never be confused.
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWhen someone either disagrees with you database guys or has a different viewpoint it's noticeable how you start name calling.
... he called all users pathetic.
Statement of fact and pretentiousness should never be confused.
blah blah must be "dumb" "ignorant" "idiotic" etc etc.
I said I considered it pathetic [look it up if you don't understand the meaning] not the people who use them.
You have shown yourselves unable to discuss a subject objectively and keep returning to the same old..."it's in the site's rules whatever" Everyone knows it's in the rules of the site. When chess was invented there was no correspondence chess, the rules have been added and tweaked ever since to cover it, so why keep saying you can't change this or that, or you can't adapt parts of the rules just because they are the rules..
We should at least feel free to discuss it without the name-calling, I know some who are afraid to post their views because of it.
btw, if you think you do not come across as pretentious you should have a rethink. [unless that is the aim of course]
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAu contraire, herr doctor, you appear to me to be the first person in this thread to call one side of the debate a derogatory name, ie: pathetic.
When someone either disagrees with you database guys or has a different viewpoint it's noticeable how you start name calling.
blah blah must be "dumb" "ignorant" "idiotic" etc etc.
I said I considered [b]it pathetic [look it up if you don't understand the meaning] not the people who use them.
You have shown yourselves unable to discuss a subjec ...[text shortened]... ross as pretentious you should have a rethink. [unless that is the aim of course][/b]
Dr. S: Regardless of "rules" that people hide behind to justify it it is pathetic in my opinion.
Dr. S: And I didn't say any person was pathetic, but copying moves from databases seems pathetic to me.
Dr. S: Just to reiterate, I didn't say any person was pathetic.
No1Marauder: You don't get it. In Xanthos' analogy this is a pole vaulting competition, but people like you are showing up choosing not to use poles and complaining that those who do are being "unfair" by not telling them they're going to use a pole. That's idiotic.
The consistent Dr S: I also take offence at being labelled an idiot for disagreeing with you.
Can you try to maintain a modicum of consistency here. You can't have 1 rule/interpretation for yourself and another for others. 2Bit said its idiotic not to use every tool at your disposal when playing correspondence chess. He labelled your actions idiotic. Not you. Well, according to your interpretation anyway.
As for the returning to the site rules, whatever BS... Would you support a new rule to make players declare that they're going to move their pawns 2 squares on its initial move? If not, why not? In pole vaulting, should the athletes have to declare that they're going to use a pole?
Ignorance breeds ignorance. I find it amazing that you are willing to debate something for this long, when you have proven yourself to be completely ignorant on this subject, and the only thing driving you is your emotive response to what you see as an outside aid. And you say I can't discuss this objectively. Please.
As an aside, would you refer to a chess book while in the middle of a game?
D
04 Jan 06
Disclaimer: I have started using databases (which I clearly declare) and find them very helpful in the opening.
The reasons many of these analogies do not work is because:
(a) people play chess OTB without using databases; this has always been the "default" form of the game.
(b) one cannot see, or otherwise tell, if the other person is using a database.
A better analogy would be this. The heads of international athletics decide there will be one 100m competition every year at which the top sprinters are allowed to use steroids. This will be completely within the rules.
Should those athletes declare whether or not they are using steroids for that competition?