10 Jan 05
4 edits
Originally posted by ChessMomIf you have memorized an opening line that I haven't, should you be allowed to play that opening line? Wouldn't you playing it violate your "level playing field" criterion? Wouldn't you be supplementing your chess skill with knowledge?
To me, a game of chess ought to be--and always will be--a matter of a test of chess skill. Not supplement skill.[/b]
Now, you might say that memorizing lines is part of chess skill. But , you complained that not all database users may be equally proficient in using them, and thus they should be prohibited; by analogy, not everybody's memorization skills are equal, so you should find that memorizing lines should also be prohibited.
Your position is ignorant and absurd.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBah. No, it isn't. Your analogy is poorly thought out, and inapplicable.
If you have memorized an opening line that I haven't, should you be allowed to play that opening line? Wouldn't you playing it violate your "level playing field" criterion? Wouldn't you be supplementing your chess skill with knowledge?
Now, you might say that memorizing lines is part of chess skill. But , you complained that not all databa ...[text shortened]... find that memorizing lines should also be prohibited.
Your position is ignorant and absurd.
"Memorizing" something is the polar opposite of "looking it up". We're not talking about "memorzing" things here--we're talking about "looking things up" here. You're introducing a "what if" that is totally irrelevant.
And yes, a major part of chess skill IS "remembering" things, i.e. "memorizing" things. So yes, chess does reward the person who is better at "remembering" or "memorizing" things. If you can't memorize things, like mating patterns or how to pull off a bishop sacrifice or a Gambit, then you'll be bad at chess, and you should find some other game.
And if you need to rely on a database to give you a mating pattern, or to remind you how to do a bishop sacrifice or a Gambit, then--my whole point is--you shouldn't be playing chess, because IMHO you're not really "playing chess".
Each game that's out there rewards people who have different skills. Backgammon rewards people who area better at calculating statistical odds. Scrabble and Boggle reward people who are better at thinking up words. Mancala rewards people who are better at visualizing and counting just where those stones will all end up. Chinese checkers rewards people who are better at making, finding, and using ladders.
And chess rewards people who are good at memorizing things.
10 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessMomIf you don't know or aren't willing to learn how to use a database then you should find some other game besides correspondance chess.
If you can't memorize things, like mating patterns or how to pull off a bishop sacrifice or a Gambit, then you'll be bad at chess, and you should find some other game.
Your definition of chess skill is completely arbitrary. If you can choose to include memory in it, then you cannot preclude others from choosing to include skilled database use in the definition.
Your stated goal is to have a level playing field. If anything, the use of databases helps to accomplish this goal, equalizing the disparity between players who have unequal skills of memorization. Otherwise, one side is making use of a supplement - memorized lines - unavailable to the other.
Your beliefs on this issue are inconsistent. You need to figure out which is important to you - allowing one to exercise one's chess skills or having a level playing field. You can't have both - they are not compatible.
10 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessMomActually chess rewards those who can understand the positional and tactical ramifications of each possible move in a given position. It's about depth.
Bah. No, it isn't. Your analogy is poorly thought out, and inapplicable.
"Memorizing" something is the polar opposite of "looking it up". We're not talking about "memorzing" things here--we're talking about "looking things u ...[text shortened]...
And chess rewards people who are good at memorizing things.
Memorisation is a part of OTB chess skill however most beginners overestimate how important it is. You could have more openings in your head than Kasparov but he'll still trash you every single game.
I'd like to see the database that gives you a mating pattern more than once or twice in a blue moon. You seem to forget the fact that you cannot rely on a database to play a game for you. It's just an aid in the opening stages.
Originally posted by ChessMom
If it's "ignorant and absurd" to say that databases and books shouldn't be used during game play, then I guess that every tournament out there is "ignorant and absurd".
OTB tournaments have different rules to correspondance tournaments. They are different. One allows database use. One doesn't. If you object to database use and want to play people who aren't using one then go play OTB.
10 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ChessMomYes, that's right, provided the tournament is designed to have a duration of several weeks, months, or years. The most serious of players envision chess primarily as a study, not a competition, and they would certainly find the notion of abandoning research for a long period of time for the sake of the outcome of a game to be soundly defeating the purpose of their pursuit.
If it's "ignorant and absurd" to say that databases and books shouldn't be used during game play, then I guess that every tournament out there is "ignorant and absurd".
Your position is analogous to a university that disallows its Doctoral candidates to go to the library during the course of writing their dissertation. After all, your dissertation is supposed to demonstrate expertise in some field, so to perform research while demonstrating that expertise would be cheating, in your view. Absurd.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomWell, you are allowed to use database and books in tournaments. In correspondence chess.
If it's "ignorant and absurd" to say that databases and books shouldn't be used during game play, then I guess that every tournament out there is "ignorant and absurd".
I think u fail to grasp the vast complexity of chess, despite it being mentioned numerous times in this thread. I'm not going to repeat what others have said.
Its been said to u numerous times, if you don't like the rules of CC, then don't play it. If you don't want to utilise one of the best learning tools in chess, then don't use it. Just, please stop telling us we're not playing chess.
I don't understand your position on not playing others here because you're not good enough. There are countless players of all different skills. If you really want to learn, and aren't just here to ridicule correspondence chess, then send out some challenges.
Thanks,
D
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOh, yes, indeed they certainly are. As a matter of fact, not only are they not incompatible, but they go hand-in-hand in chess.
Otherwise, one side is making use of a supplement - memorized lines - unavailable to the other.
Your beliefs on this issue are inconsistent. You need to figure out which is important to you - allowing one to exercise one's chess skills or having a level playing field. You can't have both - they are not compatible.
A level playing field is where both players have equal resources. And the *only* way to make sure that both players have equal resources is to make sure that they have *no* resources, which is why tournaments forbid the use of, say, running Pocket Fritz on your Palm next to you.
The only way to have a level playing field in chess is to have each player using ONLY his own god-given resources that he was born with. The same way in the Olympics, the "level playing field" means each competitor using his own god-given resources without any additional "supplements", i.e. drugs.
Exercising one's chess skills and having a level playing field are NOT mutually exclusive and incompatible--quite the contrary. That's what makes a chess game. That's what makes *any* kind of event a "sporting event", Olympics, boxing, whatever.
You seem to think that "exercising one's chess skills" means
knowing how to use a database". Question: do you play OTB games with real people, in real life? Do you get permission from your opponent to adjourn and go look things up in a database?
Fischer and Spassky had a level playing field, didn't they? And they both exercised their chess skills. Didn't they?
Fischer had "memorized lines - unavailable to the other"; Spassky had ""memorized lines - unavailable to the other". That's because each man played his games out of the depth of his own chess-playing experience. That's how it works. Each man was dependent on his own personal resources, his skills at memorizing openings, at memorizing lines and mating patterns. And if they looked things up in a book during the adjournments, still they were dependent on their own resources to make sense of what they found; they didn't have a computer to analyze the moves and tell them the percentages of how each move would probably work out.
That's how it's supposed to work, in chess, in boxing, in the 150 Olympic freestyle.
Saying that you should allow the use of databases because some people aren't as good at memorizing things than others is like saying that in Scrabble you should allow the use of the word-generator "hint" function because some people aren't as good at thinking up anagrams as others. Scrabble is "about" anagrams; if you can't do it, don't play.
And chess is "about" memorizing things. If you can't do it, don't play.
Why won't anybody answer this question that I keep asking: If using databases and books during game play is so "okay", why aren't you allowed to use them during tournaments?
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomThe world is not currently "going to hell in a handbasket" because of the rules of chess. The idea in a game or sport is to WIN, using all LEGAL means at your disposal. That doesn't mean that you must use that approach to life in general.
Well, 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 ...[text shortened]... at are against the rules.
But that's obviously wayyyyyyy beyond the scope of this forum. 😀
We are talking about a board game. Not life. A set of rules have been laid down here, and if you want to play the game under correspondence rules, you are quite welcome to. If you don't, you can go play OTB chess at a chess club, or find a chess site whose rules you fully approve of.
So far from going ot hell in a handbasket, all of the choices are yours. Which is just about as "ideal" as you can possibly get.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomThis is a blatant contradiction. Is that not obvious to you? God has not given everybody equal resources.
A level playing field is where both players have equal resources.
The only way to have a level playing field in chess is to have each player using ONLY his own god-given resources that he was born with.
You can either have a level playing field, or you can have people use their God-given resources, but not both.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by ChessMomHardly. I'll debate it on whatever level of abstraction you want to. Your position is foolish.
I see that the point I am making, about the "ethics" of using databases and books to help choose moves during game play, is evidently too abstract for this forum. I will desist.
10 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessMomBecause you are only talking about OTB tournaments.
Why won't anybody answer this question that I keep asking: If using databases and books during game play is so "okay", why aren't you allowed to use them during tournaments?
However, you ARE allowed use to databases and books in Correspondence tournaments.
OTB, Correspondence, OTB, Correspondence. Two different formats. Two different sets of rules. Get it? Please. GET IT.
10 Jan 05
Originally posted by GatecrasherYOU are the one who is not "getting it".
Because you are only talking about OTB tournaments.
However, you ARE allowed use to databases and books in Correspondence tournaments.
OTB, Correspondence, OTB, Correspondence. Two different formats. Two different sets of rules. Get it? Please. GET IT.
I *understand* that there are different rules about using "help" during OTB and CC. What *you* are not "getting" is that I DON'T CARE. I'm talking about "chess", period. I'm talking about whether it's right to use any kind of help during any kind of chess game. I DON'T CARE what the RULES say. That's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
And now I really am outta here, because I'm starting to get mad at the way people are "not getting it", and people are starting to border on ad hominems, and I don't want to make a mess in the forums.
Over and out.