Only Chess
07 Jan 08
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireAlthough I don't think the rules of this site apply to studying any position you find in a chess book, I would still say tablebases should be used to post-anlysis only. That blurry line you are talking about is exactly why. If people can bend the rules, they will.
[b]In principle I agree but where you are using a tablebase to assist in the analysis of a position from your endgame book (a legitimate tool which has the positions I quoted above in) then clearly if that had no bearing on any current game it is perfectly acceptable.
The dividing line is what is unclear to me. After all when we have 32 pieces on ...[text shortened]... me that happens the game in question will be over but the question remains for all future games.[/b]
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FirePerhaps not.
[b]The question is where do you cross that line? [/b]
Maybe this is one of those cases where definining a boundary precisely is very hard (or impossible).
However, if you feel the need to question whether it's right or wrong perhaps it's the latter.
Maybe.
07 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyNo! I agree with you that in the scenario you have mentioned it is over the line.
Dragon Fire,
I think it's at least one toe over the line, if not several. If I understand the scenario you describe, you would be seeking confirmation that a particular strategy would be valid during the very game in which you hoped to employ it. I don't think the fact that the position could not be forced is really relevant.
Just my .02
... but one studies strategy to improve performance generally and the question arises as to when it is legitimate and when it is not. I raise this question as I believe there to be a massive cloudly area.
Edit: I have now decided on balance to avoid doing this sort of analysis if I have a game that could end up moving into that territory as I have nothing to gain and everything to lose but I do feel this is a very grey area.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireContinuing on from the above post.
No! I agree with you that in the scenario you have mentioned it is over the line.
... but one studies strategy to improve performance generally and the question arises as to when it is legitimate and when it is not. I raise this question as I believe there to be a massive cloudly area.
Edit: I have now decided on balance to avoid doing this sort of ...[text shortened]... rritory as I have nothing to gain and everything to lose but I do feel this is a very grey area.
Edit: I have now decided on balance to avoid doing this sort of analysis if I have a game that could end up moving into that territory as I have nothing to gain and everything to lose but I do feel this is a very grey area. Incidently the game that set me thinking this way is Game 4368820. My best chance of a draw is clearly a perpetual but it struck me that his B did not cover the Queening square and I thought suppose somehow I could swop off the Qs and the 5 Q-side pawns. The example I gave above shows how a draw is possible if the B covers the Q-ing square (providing I do not move that N pawn). At first I didn't find anything on drawing that sort of position so I felt that maybe a bit or research would be useful and as you can see the game is a long way from that sort of position.
I have now actually found an example giving the following position as a draw (it was also in Averbakhs very useful book) so the need to study it further is no longer relevant, I just need to get there.
Very interesting. It is learning how to play these sort of endings that attracted me to RHP in the 1st place.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon Fireno, they're only prohibited during play. if you have an on-going game, and your engine & tb research affects that game, you have crossed the line. excluding that, you can research with engines & tbs all you want.
To say avoid tablebases (and engines) at all costs is not realistic as it prevents legitimate research and analysis of your games.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwoodOn balance I think in this case you are correct. Despite the significant material difference the potential position in this particular game was probably too close to the type of position I wanted to analyse therefore it crosses the line. Fortunately I did not need to do anything as it was all evenually found in my end game books although I think it unlikely the game will go that way anyway.
no, they're only prohibited during play. if you have an on-going game, and your engine & tb research affects that game, you have crossed the line. excluding that, you can research with engines & tbs all you want.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by dryhumpI feel that actually much high level OTB play right now is based on specific variations or technical novelties researched using engines, its the same old home prep, but with aid. Of course OTB you have to remember it all :-0
Would you feel comfortable doing it in otb play? Do you think the opponent in a game otb would allow it?
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpYes I would feel very happy with doing research this way OTB. If my game was adjourned I am entitled to use books, databases, engines, tablebases - the works to analyse that adjourned position but once resumed it has all got to be stored in your head and it is me vs him face to face.
Would you feel comfortable doing it in otb play? Do you think the opponent in a game otb would allow it?
The reason I am trying to do this research is to improve OTB play. Winning or drawing these endings OTB can easily add a few 100 points to a rating. Clearly the best time to do that research has been when you encounter the position in an actual game and up to now the best tool I have had is my extensive library of books. However databases can add extensively to book knowledge in the opening if used wisely and tablebases can assist with analysis of the endgame. The former is allowed here, the latter is not. The question on the latter is where to draw the line which is a valid question and that is why I bought it up.
The majority answer seems to be when it could have any possible influence on a game in progress.
I have no problem with that - for me the question is answered and I intend avoiding this where the possibility of influence on a current game exists if tablebase analysis may influence your choice of lines no matter how remote that may appear to be. However, I feel that using a tablebase to assist with the analysis of a position in a book is probably alright so the area does remain grey if you are seeking to head towards that book position.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by tomtom232Knowing this stuff is actually the difference between 2000 and 2250+.
knowing that stuff is the diff between 1400 and 2000...so 1800 is still plausible 🙂
For decades now my OTB rating has been between 1800 and 2150 (the latter 20 years ago) and at my peak the area I got most outplayed was in the end game.
Very strong players have an intuitive grasp of endings and know how to convert to a won ending early in the middle game and relentlessly head there. They also know the drawing swindles and can convert losses into draws. It is not relevant to know this level of detail at the 1800 level and even at 2000 this will not make as much difference as improving openings and tactics (beyond, of course knowing how to win or draw basic endings - everyone should know about opposition, how to draw against a R pawn or B&RP, how to mate with a sole Rook, 2Bs and probably a B&N and how to Queen that last pawn) but above this it begins to take on much more significance as less games are decided by serious mistakes.
