08 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomMy philosophy is at first, even through correspondance chess, looking up in a database immediately after a move, to say play an opening correctly, was frowned upon. HOWEVER, as time went by, ppl realized there is no point to it.
I understand the rationale for using databases. I understand the bit about the player having to make the ultimate decision about what move to play.
But unfortunately, to me, the Starry-Eyed Idealist, it still looks like you're just using the "Hint" function. I can win against Chesster the Rat if I play the entire game taking the Hint function's adv ...[text shortened]... Pocket Fritz logged onto an online database through your cell phone?
Or are you?
You cannot prove the said player is/or is not cheating. Whether he looks up in a database to play a classical Caro-Kann, or just knows it himself, the opening is the same regardless, so it's impossible to prove someone cheats by looking at the moves alone unless you have some eye witness watching over the said players by the computer screen. Seeing that there is no logical way to enforce the "no opening database consultation" rule, and there's no dinstinction beteewn someone who say, knows a Caro-Kann or looks it up in a database, the rule was removed, and ppl used the argument that at least you get practice playing against the best openings, lesser of two evils, so to speak.
So it just comes to show that even in chess it's impossible to make things 100% fair or enforce 100% fairness. Personally I will never use databases during games, however I feel no guilt upon ppl who wish to use databases as a loophole everyone else has exploited and come to expect in correspondance chess. I just hope this liberal line of thinking doesn't extend too far, ie: engines 100% legal, but that's already too late for some sites.
08 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomThe "hint" function uses the engine; that is cheating.
I understand the rationale for using databases. I understand the bit about the player having to make the ultimate decision about what move to play.
But unfortunately, to me, the Starry-Eyed Idealist, it still looks like you're just using the "Hint" function. I can win against Chesster the Rat if I play the entire game taking the Hint function's adv ...[text shortened]... Pocket Fritz logged onto an online database through your cell phone?
Or are you?
The "hint" function can be a useful for training when you are playing against the engine. In that sense it is comparable to techniques I use when I'm teaching chess--letting my opponent/my pupil take back bad moves, talking about my plans, letting him or her turn the board around.
If you become a slave to databases--using them more as an aid to playing than as an aid to learning--it will hinder your performance in OTB games.
I suspect some correspondence games are a struggle to see who has the biggest and best database, at least for part of the game. But everyone with a web connection has equal access to a database of ~2.6 million games, and they all have equal and easy access to the latest master games thanks to Mark Crowther (founder of The Week in Chess).
The real struggle still comes down to how database information gets used, and that is a matter of chess strength more than anything else.
08 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseIf this is your philsophy, then you have created a philosophy at clear odds with all available evidence. If you are 23, as you say, then I can assure you that I played postal chess before you were born.
My philosophy is at first, even through correspondance chess, looking up in a database immediately after a move, to say play an opening correctly, was frowned upon. HOWEVER, as time went by, ppl realized there is no point to it.
From the beginning, the rules encouraged me to use my openings encyclopedia.
When computer aided databases became available, the main concerns came from folks who lacked the experience and computer knowledge to understand the difference between engines (move generation) and databases (storage). Once that issue was clarified, the leading correspondence organizations clarified their rules to include databases among "printed sources" as acceptable playing aids, while excluding engines (although some organizations permit engine use, too).
08 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseSo if it's reprehensible to learn the Caro-Kann via a database, then what is the respectable way to learn it? Somehow or other someone has got to show it to you, you have to see it in a book, on a website? Somehow if you seriously want to learn to play better chess you need to get some sort of study aid and I don't see why databases of other player's games should be frowned upon?
My philosophy is at first, even through correspondance chess, looking up in a database immediately after a move, to say play an opening correctly, was frowned upon. HOWEVER, as time went by, ppl realized there is no point to it.
You cannot prove the said player is/or is not cheating. Whether he looks up in a database to play a classical Caro-Kann, or ju ...[text shortened]... ng doesn't extend too far, ie: engines 100% legal, but that's already too late for some sites.
09 Jan 05
Originally posted by ExyYou are misinterpreting--or misunderstanding--what I'm saying.
So if it's reprehensible to learn the Caro-Kann via a database, then what is the respectable way to learn it? Somehow or other someone has got to show it to you, you have to see it in a book, on a website? Somehow if you seriously want to learn to play better chess you need to get some sort of study aid and I don't see why databases of other player's games should be frowned upon?
I'm not saying it's reprehensible to use a database--I'm saying it's reprehensible (IMHO, of course) to use a database during the course of a game.
To assist you with the game in progress.
I'm not saying, "You should never use a database to learn the Caro-Kann."
I am saying, You should not use a database to help you choose moves for your game in progress."
10 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ExyNo, I understand the difference.
I do think you're a bit confused about 'database use' and how it differentiates to 'engine use'.
A database is a collection of previous games played. It only lists all the games and their moves.
An engine actually plays a game, and lists the moves.
You can use both a database and an engine to help you choose your moves.
If you're using an engine, all you do is put in your current position and watch what the computer does, how it plays.
If you're using a database, you look up all the other games that have reached a similar position, and you look to see what moves were made subsequent to that position, and how they came out. Then you pick which move looks good to you.
So you can use either a database or an engine to help you choose your moves.
Wulebgr said that he uses a database to help him choose his moves.
And my position is that you shouldn't use anything to help you choose your moves except your own brain. Which is where the "Starry-eyed idealist" thing comes in.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomStrictly speaking this is true, but at RHP the rules allow a database, and disallow an engine.
So you can use either a database or an engine to help you choose your moves.
.
Whatever the merits, or the ideals, it all boils down to the rules that are applicable. Nothing is inherently right or wrong. It is right if the rules permit it. It is wrong if the rules do not permit it. And that is true of any game or sport, in any environment, not just chess here at RHP.
It is not about ideals or morals. It's about compliance.
10 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessMomYes, in perhaps 20% of my correspondence games, and I have demonstrated my memorization of certain openings out to ten moves and beyond--a consequence of training with databases.
Wulebgr said that he uses a database to help him choose his moves.
I know you understand the difference between databases and engines, ChessMom. I also respect your ethical sensibilities. You are also doing a service to many chessplayers by voicing their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that as you more fully appreciate the complexity of chess, your concern about your shattered ideals will dissipate.
Consider that four moves into a game of chess, there are 958,605,819 possible positions. Compare this number to the 2,508,246 games in my largest database, and you'll see that a database is no substitute for chess skill, although it may supplement it. Now consider that the average game runs 37+ moves, and that no more than a few dozen of my 25,000+ online games were still "in book" at move 18.
Too much of the time for study of most chess players is squandered on learning openings, perhaps because the information is easier to organize. Father Ruy Lopez created a table of variations for the opening that now bears his name in 1561, but systematic study of the middle game remains elusive yet today. Far more important than database use, and far more beneficial, is the memorization of basic tactical motifs, including checkmate patterns of the sort you can find at http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/wulebgr/checklist.htm
You can find a lot of data regarding the mathematical complexity of chess at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~flab/chess/statistics-positions.html
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by GatecrasherWell, see, I'd have to strongly disagree with this, being IMHO the reason why the world is currently "going to hell in a handbasket" so to speak. A depressingly large number of people out there feel that in Life in general, "it's not about ideals or morals, it's about compliance", and that the only things that are "wrong" in Life are those things that are against the rules.
Whatever the merits, or the ideals, it all boils down to the rules that are applicable. Nothing is inherently right or wrong. It is right if the rules permit it. It is wrong if the rules do not permit it. And that is true of any game or sport, in any environment, not just chess here at RHP.
It is not about ideals or morals. It's about compliance.
But that's obviously wayyyyyyy beyond the scope of this forum. 😀
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by GatecrasherYes, I do understand that--the intent of my statement was more like, "One could theoretically, in the abstract, use either a database or an engine, to help you choose moves."
Strictly speaking this is true, but at RHP the rules allow a database, and disallow an engine.
I wasn't referring specifically to games at RHP; I was referring to games anywhere, anytime.
10 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrWow. This just jumped out and smacked me in the face--that's *exactly* the point I'm making. Using books and databases SUPPLEMENTS the player's chess skill. So what happens if the Other Guy doesn't happen to be as good at utilizing "supplements"? He loses, not because his "chess skill" is lacking, but because he doesn't know how to utilize supplements.
...although it may supplement it.
To me, a game of chess ought to be--and always will be--a matter of a test of chess skill. Not supplement skill.
It ought to be a level playing field, head to head, not database to database.
Question: If it's so "okay" to use "supplements", why aren't you allowed to use them during tournaments? Or are you? Nobody answered my question about whether you're allowed to have Pocket Fritz logged onto an online database during a tournament.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomPocket Fritz as I understand it is an engine. To use an online database you would use a browser (Internet Explorer or Firefox for example). In OTB chess all outside help is prohibited. So no you can't use a database. However correspondance is a different game.
Wow. This just jumped out and smacked me in the face--that's *exactly* the point I'm making. Using books and databases SUPPLEMENTS the player's chess skill. So what happens if the Other Guy doesn't happen to be as good at utilizing "supplements"? He loses, not because his "chess skill" is lacking, but because he doesn't know how to utilize supp ...[text shortened]... whether you're allowed to have Pocket Fritz logged onto an online database during a tournament.
Say I have 20 games going (I can't but say I did) and 10 of them are in an open Sicilian. I have played to this opening because I have studied this opening. It is also what I play in OTB games. While these games are in their early stages I have a tournament coming up so I decide to do some preperation. I want to beef up my opening knowledge, so I sit down with my database and go through some lines and GM games with notations in the open Sicilian. During this study it would be impossible to avoid all the positions in my correspondance games. So if in correspondance chess database use was prohibited I would be cheating. If this was so then the only time I could study a certain opening is if I didn't have any games which are playing in that opening at the time. Basically I would be left with a choice. Play my favourite opening in correspondance games and don't study it for tournament use or find a new opening to use in correspondance games.
As you can see this is not what is wanted by anyone.
Also back when OTB games were ajourned the procedure went like this: the final move would be sealed by the player. That is he would write it down but not show it to the opponent. Then the players would leave. Both players would be allowed to study the position on the board. Nothing stopped them using their seconds to help them. Would you view this as against the spirit of the game?