Only Chess
27 Dec 05
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZChess Here did not allow them when I joined, but after some criticism of their ban in the forums, that changed. I don't know of any others.
As 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?
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by RahimKCan you be more specific as to which books you use when you're playing the Bogo-Indian, please?
Why can't you just assume that everyone uses a database?
I use a database, books when I can and if my opponent doesn't want to then fine. It doesn't bother me one bit.
😉
04 Jan 06
I said I considered something pathetic and was accused of calling someone pathetic.
When my point of view is called idiotic, I get called inconsistent for taking offence for assuming you meant it in the same way that you referred to my use of "pathetic". Who's the inconsistent one, I was simply following the same standards.
1. I'm not complaining about d/b usage....right!
2. If some people like to know their opponent uses them or not I can't see why anyone would be against it.
3.Why are some so seriously against the idea? What difference does it make to you?
4.It's completely different to castling/en passant are in the standard rules of chess, d/b usage is a rule that has to be agreed on beforehand. [like it is here]
Some do some don't. But I still think it would be a good idea to know.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveIt isn't completely different to en passant or castling. These were also rules that were introduced at relatively late stages in chess. Correspondence chess also has specific rules which allow for database use (which is also not specific to RHP).
I said I considered something pathetic and was accused of calling someone pathetic.
When my point of view is called idiotic, I get called inconsistent for taking offence for assuming you meant it in the same way that you referred to my use of "pathetic". Who's the inconsistent one, I was simply following the same standards.
1. I'm not complainin ...[text shortened]... [like it is here]
Some do some don't. But I still think it would be a good idea to know.
If you were to create a correspondence site that disallows book or database use, then that would open a whole new can of worms which has been debated many times before (e.g. avoiding reading about specific openings which happen to be amongst the many games you might have going at the moment). This would render the ban on database and books use impractical.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by lauseyIt IS completely different to castling and en passant inasmuch as they are standard rules allowed in EVERY chess game.
It isn't completely different to en passant or castling.
If you were to create a correspondence site that disallows book or database use....
Nobody said anything about disallowing them, at least not me.
I seem to be flogging a dead horse here..........
the end.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWhy don't you try playing a game or two using a database as an aid? you might learn nothing, not least that database use isn't just "copying a move from a database"
It IS completely different to castling and en passant inasmuch as they are standard rules allowed in EVERY chess game.
Nobody said anything about disallowing them, at least not me.
I seem to be flogging a dead horse here..........
the end.
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveCorrespondence games can go on for years. Do you expect a player to quit studying chess books for the whole time?
It IS completely different to castling and en passant inasmuch as they are standard rules allowed in EVERY chess game.
Nobody said anything about disallowing them, at least not me.
I seem to be flogging a dead horse here..........
the end.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI might just do that as it seems everyone else is.
Why don't you try playing a game or two using a database as an aid? you might learn nothing, not least that database use isn't just "copying a move from a database"
D
I would still be agreeable to stating that I was doing so.
04 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThat's what the forums are all about.
I seem to be flogging a dead horse here..........
[Edits other stuff cut out.]
Your point seems to be that it is only fair to be using a database if your opponent knows you are. I think that we all agree on that. The problem with your position is that that is the default situation for this site; and for correspondence chess in general, so you can assume your opponent is. Anyway all that cuts out are some tricks in the opening.
A more interesting question is how much difference does it make? Based on my site rating before and after I started using a database/ books and allowing for my own improvement I'd estimate about 100 - 200 ratings points.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHave you read this thread, it's not about stopping the use of books, databases.
Correspondence games can go on for years. Do you expect a player to quit studying chess books for the whole time?
Honestly, flogging a dead horse would be an upgrade.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtRight, I was saying it would be a good idea if.....
The problem with your position is that that is the default situation for this site; and for correspondence chess in general, so you can assume your opponent is.
so it's the default situation as you say, it could be made possible for people to state that they are NOT using them couldn't it?
Yeah I know. In their profiles. Yeah.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveMost users who choose to handicap themselves this way do mention in their profile that they don't use databases. Just look at your own profile and centernut's User 138492
Right, I was saying it would be a good idea if.....
so it's the default situation as you say, it could be made possible for people to state that they are NOT using them couldn't it?
Yeah I know. In their profiles. Yeah.
Its fine to have that attitude as a non-sub, but in tournament play where you can't stipulate who you play, are you going to resign games at the start?
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOh, but I have read the thread, including page 2, where you stated:
Have you read this thread, it's not about stopping the use of books, databases.
Honestly, flogging a dead horse would be an upgrade.
"What's the point in playing any type of chess if you are copying moves from a database?
Regardless of "rules" that people hide behind to justify it it is pathetic in my opinion."
This drives your request to be informed about database use before the game. You could then treat such players as 'cheats' and abort games with them, even though they are following the rules.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI see your point re tournaments but don't forget I'm not saying they shouldn't be used at all.
Most users who choose to handicap themselves this way do mention in their profile that they don't use databases. Just look at your own profile and centernut's User 138492
Its fine to have that attitude as a non-sub, but in tournament play where you can't stipulate who you play, are you going to resign games at the start?
D
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIn the post you quote, I was asking a question, although I've since then been told I meant it as a rhetorical question.
Oh, but I have read the thread, including page 2, where you stated:
[b]"What's the point in playing any type of chess if you are copying moves from a database?
Regardless of "rules" that people hide behind to justify it it is pathetic in my opinion."
This drives your request to be informed about database use before the game. You could then ...[text shortened]... players as 'cheats' and abort games with them, even though they are following the rules.[/b]
I have never stated that it is cheating. It's obviously NOT cheating or it wouldn't be clearly allowed would it? [that is a rhetorical question, don't answer]