14 Jan 11
Originally posted by plopzillaI agree about engine use, but reference materials are the norm in Correspondence Chess and always have been. IDK what you are talking about with improving your analysis- CC is about looking much deeper in a position since you have more time and the ability to move pieces around- if you choose not to do so and take the OTB approach that is your perogative, but it will ultimately hurt your results.
Pretty pathetic if you need to use a database or any engine to play games here - what does that do to improve your analysis? That would explain why weak players are getting an advantage in the opening, then the rest of their play is average.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by JS3571) When I first started playing CC, I just approached it like playing OTB- with decent results but I found that certain of my openings were practically unplayable CC style as the surprise and obscurity elements of them were part of there strength. If you didn't have your own home prep you could forget about getting anywhere.
I see you have won some tournaments. Have you entered any tournaments without using opening databases? Won any of them? No harm intended, I'm just curious as to whether using dbs results in better play when not using them. I've relied on them too, although less frequently recently. Or is it that we as chess fans should just get over the idea that chess without using dbs is somehow more legitimate and is the true test of skill?
2) What I like about opening references/databases etc is that versus another skilled player you can really get into a cat and mouse game of what your opponent does and doesnt know in their reference work and also what sort of middle game position you ultimately reach.
a great example of that was a year and a half ago I was playing a hybrid nimzo/QID position that was quoting ivanchuk- polgar game that had just finished a month before. In the notes to that game Judit claimed a win at a certain point and had published various analysis to prove it. So I steered the game toward that line, however my opponent found an improvement earlier on in the game that led to my instant demise. For me, that is part of what makes CC fun, otherwise I would just stick to solely playing otb.
3) I think the only true test of skill is otb, while I enjoy CC, it is a bit more like a science project whereas OTB is a sport.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by nimzo5#3 is why I play here- I use this as a lab experiment/test bed to try out stuff against human players. My goal is to find new and useful things for my OTB play, and to work on my technique, especially endgame technique.
1) When I first started playing CC, I just approached it like playing OTB- with decent results but I found that certain of my openings were practically unplayable CC style as the surprise and obscurity elements of them were part of there strength. If you didn't have your own home prep you could forget about getting anywhere.
2) What I like about opening re ...[text shortened]... skill is otb, while I enjoy CC, it is a bit more like a science project whereas OTB is a sport.
As an aside, my impression of the site is that people are pretty good about using their resources for openings, but they don't bother when it comes to endgames.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by nimzo5CC using a DB is a bit like a science project but can also be a bit like following someone else's (or a group's) cookbook. I would like using an on-line opening book if it gave some text explaining why the stated move is superior to the more obvious alternatives. All I seem to find are opening DBs that list responses in terms of their popularity with some group of players, which can distort things. For example the DB on RHP will gradually accumulate more "votes" for the most popular moves, not necessarily because they are superior, more because they are "safe". And eventually, someone goes off book or it runs dry. A player who has only been following the popular route without thinking about it will suddenly be at a loss, having had no strategic plan in mind.
1) When I first started playing CC, I just approached it like playing OTB- with
(delete...)
3) I think the only true test of skill is otb, while I enjoy CC, it is a bit more like a science project whereas OTB is a sport.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by nimzo5CC using a DB is a bit like a science project but can also be a bit like following someone else's (or a group's) cookbook. I would like using an on-line opening book if it gave some text explaining why the stated move is superior to the more obvious alternatives. All I seem to find are opening DBs that list responses in terms of their popularity with some group of players, which can distort things. For example the DB on RHP will gradually accumulate more "votes" for the most popular moves, not necessarily because they are superior, more because they are "safe". And eventually, someone goes off book or it runs dry. A player who has only been following the popular route without thinking about it will suddenly be at a loss, having had no strategic plan in mind.
1) When I first started playing CC, I just approached it like playing OTB- with
(delete...)
3) I think the only true test of skill is otb, while I enjoy CC, it is a bit more like a science project whereas OTB is a sport.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Ok I can see that using an opening book to and learn and get into a certain postions for first few moves is ok. But I think it's a shame the engine has to come on in the middle and end game.
There must be a trusted group of people who want to play a decent, engine free game of Chess here?
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by plopzillaEngine use is not allowed. Book and database usage is. So hopefully yes, there are a lot of people here playing decent engine free games of chess here.
Ok I can see that using an opening book to and learn and get into a certain postions for first few moves is ok. But I think it's a shame the engine has to come on in the middle and end game.
There must be a trusted group of people who want to play a decent, engine free game of Chess here?
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by plopzillaI think there is a certain futility in trying to influence what other people do on an internet chess site.
Ok I can see that using an opening book to and learn and get into a certain postions for first few moves is ok. But I think it's a shame the engine has to come on in the middle and end game.
There must be a trusted group of people who want to play a decent, engine free game of Chess here?
At any instant a player of any rating can take advice from an engine, a stronger friend or relative, and if such things are against the rules - as they are here - then one has to rely on the powers that be to take whatever action they see fit.
Some players enjoy simultaneous rapid-play of many games at 30 seconds a move, others like the forensic attention to detail of opening research, whether in an offbeat gambit or a Super GM main line. On RHP they should not use engines but I have no doubt that some will. Some like to use the slow time controls in an effort to produce their best, perhaps even a master strength, game.
Personally I have given up worrying what anyone else does. I have given up trawling databases, opening books and so on, as I have done on other sites in years gone by, eventually becoming too terrified to to move in case it is the wrong choice. I have given up worrying if I make a few moves under the influence one evening and hang my queen. I don't worry if I am out and about and log into the site on a mobile phone without, horror of horrors, any reference material to hand. I stand as a testament that it is possible to be 1800 RHP playing that way. I play my "serious" chess OTB in club leagues and weekend tournaments. At the level I play at OTB (1800ish) most of my games curve out of the book lines between move 7 and 12 thus deep opening research is pointless unless I particularly want to do it. At my age training is unlikely to deliver much of a grade increase thus I can relax and enjoy the game for what it is. I am amused by the angst in the forum about drilling this or that or whether a given opening or book is the path to glory. To me this site is a chance to play my favourite game when the club is closed, in the same way as I might play a casual 10 minute game there when I don't have a match. There are plenty here who seem to feel the same. Others put the effort/research and hours in. Good luck to them. On a site like this the rating may say as much about your attitude and approach to the game as about your results.
You choose ... 🙂
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27921
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by plopzillaThere is a huge difference between database use and engine use. I would imagine most people on this site (myself included) *do* use databases but *don't* use engines. This is normal in correspondence chess. As others have said, engine use is not allowed here.
Ok I can see that using an opening book to and learn and get into a certain postions for first few moves is ok. But I think it's a shame the engine has to come on in the middle and end game.
As far as CC vs OTB is concerned, they are different games. I play different openings in CC vs OTB, as the use of databases makes me feel more secure in sharper lines that are more fun, but where one mistake can cost the game. OTB I play safer lines, but my chess overall has without a doubt improved OTB since I started playing here. I've got better at seeing patterns, and getting a 'feel' for when it's time to attack. (Not that I always get it right of course!)
These are things that come with the depth of analysis that CC allows, and are nothing to do with databases.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by JS357If you are not at the stage where you don't understand clearly what you are trying to accomplish with a move in the opening, than a database is not going to help you. It is far better to use a database to do a soft blundercheck -i.e. checking the line you want to play to see if something goes horribly wrong, in that case.
CC using a DB is a bit like a science project but can also be a bit like following someone else's (or a group's) cookbook. I would like using an on-line opening book if it gave some text explaining why the stated move is superior to the more obvious alternatives. All I seem to find are opening DBs that list responses in terms of their popularity with some grou ...[text shortened]... ithout thinking about it will suddenly be at a loss, having had no strategic plan in mind.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by Ragwortgreat post, recc'd.
I think there is a certain futility in trying to influence what other people do on an internet chess site.
At any instant a player of any rating can take advice from an engine, a stronger friend or relative, and if such things are against the rules - as they are here - then one has to rely on the powers that be to take whatever action they see fit.
Some ...[text shortened]... uch about your attitude and approach to the game as about your results.
You choose ... 🙂
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThat is surely true for me. I sometimes use a database for openings when I play a higher rated opponent. The main reason is that I don't want to be trapped at the very beginning of the game and my glass of wine is filled. When I get slaughtered in the middle or end game, I don't mind.
As an aside, my impression of the site is that people are pretty good about using their resources for openings, but they don't bother when it comes to endgames.
20 Jan 11
Ignoring for a moment that most amateurs don't enjoy endgames...
the one thing about endgame reference works is that while you might have 150 great examples of rook and knight vs rook and knight endgames - the specifics of your position will almost always trump general knowledge.
obviously stuff like r+P vs r there is no excuse not to do the work.