Hi.
I realise we are not allowed to use computer programs on RHP, yet I don't understand why databases or books are allowed. I have a book outlining the Kings gambit (not that I dont know it all by now), but it really would give a substantial advantage to anyone playing that strategy. Infact I played IronMan using pretty much 'textbook' moves, which I knew only because that was the main line, but either way, anyone with such a book could simply follow that book and start off very strongly.
Now I know that most 1200-1400 don't use any books during play (you can see from their unorthodox openings), so why exactly is it allowed on this site to use books and databases during play ? I've just noticed a number of high ranked players openly admitting to using external aids. In my opinion this is by no means a fair contest. Can you bring in a database with you in a tournament ? Do you do that in a real life game ? No, ofcourse not.
Now, I realise certain people openly admit they're using such aids, which is a good thing so atleast you know not to play them, but these guys I'll end up playing in a tournament. I believe BBarr admits to using such aids, however also agreed to not to use such aids if asked at the start of a game. My only problem with that is that most players very seldom bother to check up on the profile of their opponent at the start of a game. At his level however that is not a problem as he is unlikely to play a 1400 rated player. If however you look at someone like no1Marauder his profile states "I use a MCO-14 and some opening databases; if you have a problem with that, don't play me. . Is this for real ? As he's playing clan matches, does his opponents really have any option BUT to play him ?
Just my 2c. I've little doubdt I couldn't get my ratings up to 1800 by using programs and such, but what is the point ? Is it feasible to set up a database/computer assisted tournament/league for those that choose to use aids ingame ?
cheers
The use of databases and books are perfectly normal (and widely accepted) in CC. Of course you can't bring books and databases to an OTB match, but OTB is a different discipline.
I love the ability to look up openings as I play them--It's a great way to learn.
...And I don't think that books and databases alone will win many games.
I agree...Openings books and databases can't get you but so far before you are in uncharted waters...Once you get there, you have to show your true skill.
The reason I have found correspondance chess to be far superior to anything else is because you get much more thought out games. There is no time pressure and you can research all you want within reason to get the best move possible...You have to keep in mind, if you want the OTB experience of time pressure and "only from your own brain strategies", clubs and tournaments are your answer. CC will never compare to staring at another across a checkered table for true wisdom...However, most players here are trying to do one thing...learn. CC is almost as good as having your own chess tutor...even better in fact, because you have to seek out the answers to your own questions.
Originally posted by pcaspianThis debate has been done to death in the past. I follow the rules here at RHP; my use of an MCO-14 and one database in some games is a useful learning tool to me. If other players don't want to use them that's up to them; in my mind they're hurting themselves by not learning accepted opening strategy. MCO-14 is about 25 bucks and they're are numerous excellent databases on the web for free; I would encourage everyone to use these aids as you will improve your game in the very short run by learning opening theory and more importantly, using it in games. Then when you play OTB you will remember certain useful lines and throw away most of the inferior openings many lower rated players play here.
Hi.
I realise we are not allowed to use computer programs on RHP, yet I don't understand why databases or books are allowed. I have a book outlining the Kings gambit (not that I dont know it all by now), but it really would give a substantial advantage to anyone playing that strategy. Infact I played IronMan using pretty much 'textbook' moves, which ...[text shortened]... atabase/computer assisted tournament/league for those that choose to use aids ingame ?
cheers
My profile, of course, refers to open challenges which I rarely accept anyway. The rules allow what I'm doing, I assume most players rated near enough to me to play me in clan games are doing the same and if people want to handicap themselves in tournaments by not using the tools that the TOS allows, that's their problem, not mine.
this is correspondence chess. Correspondence chess allows for databases and books. anybody who wants a variation on that i.e. no databases, bad databases, books, no books, bad books, playing only with a hangover, etc, may do so by mutual agreement. End of story. this dead horse has been beaten so many times, the only thing left is the hoofs. Maybe we should require that everyone read a short history of correspondence chess before joinging RHP. These types of threads are on par with others that claim to have discovered a new opening or gained five hundred rating points through hypnosis.
Yes, not only are the use of books and databases allowed in the TOS but should also help improve subsequent OTB play and the general quality of play here. They certainly have been making a big difference to my playing ability.
Though, I have considered having a period of, say, two months of not using them to see how I get on and how much I can remember (not yet though as still much to cover of the standard openings).
Has anyone tried this and how did you get on? No1Marauder, have you considered this?
I think the main reason for allowing players to read books while they play correspondence chess is that it is unimaginable to require people to stop learning from books while they have any games outstanding.
Let's say that I play the QGD against you, and you happened to be studying a book on the QGD. Would it be feasible to require that you read no more in the book until we are finished, when we might not finish for months?
Originally posted by dpressnell
I think the main reason for allowing players to read books while they play correspondence chess is that it is unimaginable to require people to stop learning from books while they have any games outstanding.
Let's say that I play the QGD against you, and you happened to be studying a book on the QGD. Would it be feasible to require that you read no more in the book until we are finished, when we might not finish for months?
The issue arises when relying on books or databases for one particular game. I could write a computer program that contains such a vast database which would point out each and every possible move I could make in advance for atleast the first 8/9 moves (taking into accounts ofcourse the most popular moves and variations). I have little doubdt that with computer aid (no actual move calculations, purely reference guide) my ratings will increase dramatically. Ofcourse I will still have to complete the game myself, however the advantage gained is truely significant.
Simply put, is this not the poor man's approach to being a Grand Master ? Ofcourse personally I find little/no enjoyment out of playing out of a book, but I do realise that this provides the perfect medium for indeed using databases/books. Am I correct though that the real time ability of players on RHP reflect their actual ratings on RHP ?
cheers
I lie I cheat I steal. Opps I am still playing inside of the rules. So what is the problem all of you cry babies are having? Playing within the bounds of the rules is not unfair. I guess it is unfair when your opponent does not play a bad move after you do. If you do not like correspondence rules then go and play players over the board. P.S. This is a general rant.
Originally posted by The Swine Down HopeI actually do intend to do this for a period before I enter OTB tournaments, which I expect to do within 6 months or so. I also have to figure out how to work with a clock as I haven't play in a timed setting for 20 years! I am pretty happy with my standard openings now and rarely crack a book or database for the Najdorf or some variations of the Scotch I've been playing; but I'm still experimenting with various responses to d4 and other irregular openings so I still use them for that.
Yes, not only are the use of books and databases allowed in the TOS but should also help improve subsequent OTB play and the general quality of play here. They certainly have been making a big difference to my playing ability.
...[text shortened]... s and how did you get on? No1Marauder, have you considered this?
People can say what they want, but using standard openings makes for a better game. Who wants to see an opponent blunder a piece in the first 10 moves or leave themselves in such an inferior position that there virtually certain to lose? I enjoy coming out of the opening in a roughly equal position so that the game can be decided by play emanating from positions that I'm most likely to face in OTB play. I know what to do when an opponent plays Qh5 on the 2nd move, but there ain't much fun playing against such terrible moves!
Pcaspian doesn't understand the absolute complexity of chess; in my ancient book by James Mason he cites an article called the "Inexhaustibility of Chess" by Edwin Anthony: he calculates the following number as the possible number of playing the first ten moves of a game of chess: 169,518,829,100,544,000,000,000,000,000 and states with the turn of the century world population of 1.5 billion it would require 217 billion year to go through every combination if each person on the planet was going through an entire set of moves once a minute and no set was repeated!! He also doesn't understand that there is rarely one "correct" move in opening variation; you usually have several different moves even in standard variation to choose from leading you to completely different types of games! And to suggest you're a poor man's GrandMaster because you play standard variations that are used by club level players all over the world is just ridiculous.
Next we will be outlawing the use of memory and experience, since it gives its owners a totally unfair advantage over those making bad moves.
Whether one looks up the theory, or remembers it, is immaterial to the outcome of a game. Nor is any of the theory definitive. Initially, there are almost always a multitude of options you can make that are just as sound. You still have to make the choice on every move. And pretty soon the theory and options run out. You're in the middle game, and you're on your own. The game has truly begun.
The fact is books and databases are mere tools, and unlike chess engines, they can't do the thinking for you.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Pcaspian doesn't understand the absolute complexity of chess; in my ancient book by James Mason he cites an article called the "Inexhaustibility of Chess" by Edwin Anthony: he calculates the following number as the possible number of playing the first ten moves of a game of chess: 169,518,829,100,544,000,000,000,000,000 and states with the turn of the century world population of 1.5 billion it would require 217 billion year to go through every combination if each person on the planet was going through an entire set of moves once a minute and no set was repeated!! He also doesn't understand that there is rarely one "correct" move in opening variation; you usually have several different moves even in standard variation to choose from leading you to completely different types of games! And to suggest you're a poor man's GrandMaster because you play standard variations that are used by club level players all over the world is just ridiculous.
You lack compehensive reading. As I stated the data would be restricted to known variations.
A database of existing tried and tested opening variations needs not be significantly large. Ofcourse one can choose to open with unorthodox moves, however already you would be on the back foot if doing so purely to elimitate your opponent when he's using a database. We all realise moving one's knight out and straight back again would constitute such an orthodox variation and indeed fit in with the mathematical model and everyone with elementary statistical knowledge knows tracking every single variation is futile. The point at hand is that a GM's life would be significantly easier if he/she could reference all old games whils't playing against someone else. This would be an evern greater aid to someone not studied in all the openings.
Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Next we will be outlawing the use of memory and experience, since it gives its owners a totally unfair advantage over those making bad moves.
Whether one looks up the theory, or remembers it, is immaterial to the outcome of a game. Nor is any of the theory definitive. Initially, there are almost always a multitude of options you can make that are just as sound. You still have to make the choice on every move. And pretty soon the theory and options run out. You're in the middle game, and you're on your own. The game has truly begun.
The fact is books and databases are mere tools, and unlike chess engines, they can't do the thinking for you.
GM's rely on exhaustive studies as part of their routine. Ofcourse any GM would cream me without having to rely on memory, however chess is not just raw tallent.
Originally posted by pcaspianQuite right, but GMs play OTB and get paid for it. If my livelyhood depended on it, I would have a great deal more theory committed to memory. As it is, we're just here to have fun and to learn.
GM's rely on exhaustive studies as part of their routine. Ofcourse any GM would cream me without having to rely on memory, however chess is not just raw tallent.
[/b]
Pcaspian,you're right,books/databases give a significant advantage,if you're openingskills are poor.I don't know how yours are.If they're rather poor,I'd say you can gain 150-200 points in rating.If you allready have good skill,then a mere 50-100 will be all you can gain.And that is,if you make use of them in each and every game,which I don't think many people here do.That's not quite the same as playing like a GM.There's more to chess than just the opening.
But all that is besides the point,really.Books/databases are allowed in corr chess.That,and the time control,is what makes it different from OTB.If you don't agree,you should stick to OTB.