Stockfish Database/Opening Book

Phoenyx75
DeirdreSkye wrote:
 
If only you would focus more on constructive, rather than destructive criticism. 

         Sure constructive critiscism  , how did I miss that.

         Here is one. Close the engine , read some good books and try to develop a proper thinking process or you might need 5 years to reach the same level that others reach in 5 hours(or less).       

        I know chess is scary but by being constanly scared , avoiding to play and hiding behind the excuse of "perfect opening play" , your improvement(if any) will be painfully slow. If you think the game is hard in the opening, what will you do in the middlegame with all the pieces in action? How Stockfish will help you there? 

    The middlegame and the endgame in chess are a real nightmare , and you are unable to evaluate a position with 2 pieces developed! Your "perfect opening play" , even if we assume that you will some day achieve that delusional goal(till today there is not even one World Champion that played the opening perfectly in every game) will be absolutely useless. What will you do then?

 

I do the best I can with the middle and end games- but contrary to what you suggest, I strongly believe that the middle and end game are easier than the opening. If you mess up the opening, the mistakes can be magnified by your opponent, with the likelihood of winning becoming ever smaller. On the other hand, if you open well against a similarly ranked opponent, the odds of you doing well in the middle and end game are quite good.

 

I have read a few books on chess over the years, but ever since I started studying chess openings mainly via chess engine, but sometimes by looking at Master games as well, I've come to enjoy chess a lot more. You can go on about it being painfully slow or what not, but I like learning this way and since this certainly isn't my job, I'm ok with taking my time about it. I wouldn't be surprised if one day, I would find that I'm not the only person to use my chess engine database- they may make more or less exceptions to chess engine moves, perhaps annotate it a lot more than I do, but I think that it's time people recognize that chess engines don't need to only be used in the middle game. They may not always be as good as established opening moves, but in cases where this is clear, exceptions can be made.

BobbyTalparov

Phoenyx75 wrote:

DeirdreSkye wrote:
 
If only you would focus more on constructive, rather than destructive criticism. 

         Sure constructive critiscism  , how did I miss that.

         Here is one. Close the engine , read some good books and try to develop a proper thinking process or you might need 5 years to reach the same level that others reach in 5 hours(or less).       

        I know chess is scary but by being constanly scared , avoiding to play and hiding behind the excuse of "perfect opening play" , your improvement(if any) will be painfully slow. If you think the game is hard in the opening, what will you do in the middlegame with all the pieces in action? How Stockfish will help you there? 

    The middlegame and the endgame in chess are a real nightmare , and you are unable to evaluate a position with 2 pieces developed! Your "perfect opening play" , even if we assume that you will some day achieve that delusional goal(till today there is not even one World Champion that played the opening perfectly in every game) will be absolutely useless. What will you do then?

 

I do the best I can with the middle and end games- but contrary to what you suggest, I strongly believe that the middle and end game are easier than the opening. If you mess up the opening, the mistakes can be magnified by your opponent, with the likelihood of winning becoming ever smaller. On the other hand, if you open well against a similarly ranked opponent, the odds of you doing well in the middle and end game are quite good.

 

I have read a few books on chess over the years, but ever since I started studying chess openings mainly via chess engine, but sometimes by looking at Master games as well, I've come to enjoy chess a lot more. You can go on about it being painfully slow or what not, but I like learning this way and since this certainly isn't my job, I'm ok with taking my time about it. I wouldn't be surprised if one day, I would find that I'm not the only person to use my chess engine database- they may make more or less exceptions to chess engine moves, perhaps annotate it a lot more than I do, but I think that it's time people recognize that chess engines don't need to only be used in the middle game. They may not always be as good as established opening moves, but in cases where this is clear, exceptions can be made.

Almost everything you say here is incorrect. Granted, if you enjoy taking your time, more power to you; however do mot be deluded into thinking that your improvement method is practical or useful. For starters, chess engines are designed to use opening books. If you are crafting your openings using an engine without a book, you are losing roughly a third of the engine's strength. If you are using it with a book, you are better off simply practicing your favorite openings in games until you have sufficiently mastered them. That is, either you are misusing the engine, or the engine is unnecessary. Second, the opening is all about getting to a playable middle game. The middle game is, by far, more complicated than the opening. The endgame is as complicated, if not more so, than the middle game. In the opening, if you make a mild mistake, it is likely no big deal. In the endgame, a small mistake will cost you the game. @DeirdreSkye is 100% correct that you should put away the engine. Learn to analyze and calculate properly and the engine will eventually be a useful tool. Right now, the engine is keeping you from progressing.

Phoenyx75
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Phoenyx75 wrote:

I do the best I can with the middle and end games- but contrary to what you suggest, I strongly believe that the middle and end game are easier than the opening. If you mess up the opening, the mistakes can be magnified by your opponent, with the likelihood of winning becoming ever smaller. On the other hand, if you open well against a similarly ranked opponent, the odds of you doing well in the middle and end game are quite good.

 

I have read a few books on chess over the years, but ever since I started studying chess openings mainly via chess engine, but sometimes by looking at Master games as well, I've come to enjoy chess a lot more. You can go on about it being painfully slow or what not, but I like learning this way and since this certainly isn't my job, I'm ok with taking my time about it. I wouldn't be surprised if one day, I would find that I'm not the only person to use my chess engine database- they may make more or less exceptions to chess engine moves, perhaps annotate it a lot more than I do, but I think that it's time people recognize that chess engines don't need to only be used in the middle game. They may not always be as good as established opening moves, but in cases where this is clear, exceptions can be made.

Almost everything you say here is incorrect. Granted, if you enjoy taking your time, more power to you; however do mot be deluded into thinking that your improvement method is practical or useful. For starters, chess engines are designed to use opening books. If you are crafting your openings using an engine without a book, you are losing roughly a third of the engine's strength. If you are using it with a book, you are better off simply practicing your favorite openings in games until you have sufficiently mastered them. That is, either you are misusing the engine, or the engine is unnecessary. Second, the opening is all about getting to a playable middle game. The middle game is, by far, more complicated than the opening. The endgame is as complicated, if not more so, than the middle game. In the opening, if you make a mild mistake, it is likely no big deal. In the endgame, a small mistake will cost you the game. @DeirdreSkye is 100% correct that you should put away the engine. Learn to analyze and calculate properly and the engine will eventually be a useful tool. Right now, the engine is keeping you from progressing.

 

 

Personally, I like my improvement method. Don't get me wrong, I do the lessons provided here on chess.com, just finished the maximum of 10 a day that a Platinum membership allows, but I personally really like seeing what Stockfish would have done in x game that I've played and adding it to my opening database. As I mentioned before, I do have some exceptions where I've determined that an opening that Masters prefer is better than an opening that Stockfish prefers, but on the whole, I think its opening moves are pretty good. There's also the fact that there are many amateur moves that Master databases simply don't cover, whereas Stockfish can cover any opening move you throw at it.

BobbyTalparov

Phoenyx75 wrote:

BobbyTalparov wrote:
Phoenyx75 wrote:

I do the best I can with the middle and end games- but contrary to what you suggest, I strongly believe that the middle and end game are easier than the opening. If you mess up the opening, the mistakes can be magnified by your opponent, with the likelihood of winning becoming ever smaller. On the other hand, if you open well against a similarly ranked opponent, the odds of you doing well in the middle and end game are quite good.

 

I have read a few books on chess over the years, but ever since I started studying chess openings mainly via chess engine, but sometimes by looking at Master games as well, I've come to enjoy chess a lot more. You can go on about it being painfully slow or what not, but I like learning this way and since this certainly isn't my job, I'm ok with taking my time about it. I wouldn't be surprised if one day, I would find that I'm not the only person to use my chess engine database- they may make more or less exceptions to chess engine moves, perhaps annotate it a lot more than I do, but I think that it's time people recognize that chess engines don't need to only be used in the middle game. They may not always be as good as established opening moves, but in cases where this is clear, exceptions can be made.

Almost everything you say here is incorrect. Granted, if you enjoy taking your time, more power to you; however do mot be deluded into thinking that your improvement method is practical or useful. For starters, chess engines are designed to use opening books. If you are crafting your openings using an engine without a book, you are losing roughly a third of the engine's strength. If you are using it with a book, you are better off simply practicing your favorite openings in games until you have sufficiently mastered them. That is, either you are misusing the engine, or the engine is unnecessary. Second, the opening is all about getting to a playable middle game. The middle game is, by far, more complicated than the opening. The endgame is as complicated, if not more so, than the middle game. In the opening, if you make a mild mistake, it is likely no big deal. In the endgame, a small mistake will cost you the game. @DeirdreSkye is 100% correct that you should put away the engine. Learn to analyze and calculate properly and the engine will eventually be a useful tool. Right now, the engine is keeping you from progressing.

 

 

Personally, I like my improvement method. Don't get me wrong, I do the lessons provided here on chess.com, just finished the maximum of 10 a day that a Platinum membership allows, but I personally really like seeing what Stockfish would have done in x game that I've played and adding it to my opening database. As I mentioned before, I do have some exceptions where I've determined that an opening that Masters prefer is better than an opening that Stockfish prefers, but on the whole, I think its opening moves are pretty good. There's also the fact that there are many amateur moves that Master databases simply don't cover, whereas Stockfish can cover any opening move you throw at it.

You can use a hammer to put a screw in place, but that does not mean it is the correct tool to do it, nor does it mean you used either correctly.

big_cheesebread
Jesus Christ everyone please stop attacking this man let him live chess is fun
Phoenyx75
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Phoenyx75 wrote:
Personally, I like my improvement method. Don't get me wrong, I do the lessons provided here on chess.com, just finished the maximum of 10 a day that a Platinum membership allows, but I personally really like seeing what Stockfish would have done in x game that I've played and adding it to my opening database. As I mentioned before, I do have some exceptions where I've determined that an opening that Masters prefer is better than an opening that Stockfish prefers, but on the whole, I think its opening moves are pretty good. There's also the fact that there are many amateur moves that Master databases simply don't cover, whereas Stockfish can cover any opening move you throw at it.
 

You can use a hammer to put a screw in place, but that does not mean it is the correct tool to do it, nor does it mean you used either correctly.

 

Certainly, but I don't think that's an apt analogy here. I personally like good openings a lot. Now I will grant that perhaps I would win more games if I didn't focus so much on openings, but seeing as my goal isn't to win as many games as possible, I'm ok with that. I've also shared my opening move database so anyone who would like to see what Stockfish (for the most part) things are good opening moves is welcome to do so. Before I started, I looked for a Stockfish database of moves, but couldn't find one. Even if I had, it probably would have simply shown a database of -all- the moves that Stockfish did in given positions, whereas what I was really looking for is what it considered to be the best move in a given position. Granted, that changes given version and depth, but I settle for "State of the Art", that is, what does the latest version at the highest depth that I've seen say. With some exceptions as mentioned before.

Phoenyx75
big_cheesebread wrote:
Jesus Christ everyone please stop attacking this man let him live chess is fun

 

Lol big cheese :-). I don't mind constructive criticism, and I think Bobby's post is closer to that. Even Deidre finally stopped insulting me and asked me a question which I think was very useful for the discussion. Ultimately, different people will have different goals in chess, and I think they may have begun to understand that my goals are not theirs. 

DeirdreSkye

    The goals of all chesplayers is one , to play chess better. There is not even one chessplayer that wouldn't take the "pill of improvement" if there was one. I do  understand that some don't care , they play for fun. But don't care doesn't mean they wouldn't want to. It only means they don't have time to.

     You can have any goal you like. You can do it anyway you like. I would even help you if I could .But don't try to mislead people by telling them that you are "getting better". If nothing else , this is misleading and unfortunately there are naive that are ready to believe you.

    I have no problem if you want to spend 5 years to learn what others learn in less than an hour. My problem is when you advertise all this as an "efficient training method" while hiding that you resign positions where you are clearly better because you are actually unable to evaluate a position with 2 pieces developed.

    It is my right to do skydiving without parachute if I want to. My goal might be to prove that human body can survive such a fall(by the way , it has happened). It's my right to have different goals , right? But trying to convince people that is the right way to do it , is not my right. I think we agree with that. 

    

Phoenyx75
DeirdreSkye wrote:

    The goals of all chesplayers is one , to play chess better. There is not even one chessplayer that wouldn't take the "pill of improvement" if there was one. I do  understand that some don't care , they play for fun. But don't care doesn't mean they wouldn't want to. It only means they don't have time to.

     You can have any goal you like. You can do it anyway you like. I would even help you if I could .But don't try to mislead people by telling them that you are "getting better". If nothing else , this is misleading and unfortunately there are naive that are ready to believe you.

    I have no problem if you want to spend 5 years to learn what others learn in less than an hour. My problem is when you advertise all this as an "efficient training method" while hiding that you resign positions where you are clearly better because you are actually unable to evaluate a position with 2 pieces developed.

    It is my right to do skydiving without parachute if I want to. My goal might be to prove that human body can survive such a fall(by the way , it has happened). It's my right to have different goals , right? But trying to convince people that is the right way to do it , is not my right. I think we agree with that. 

 

I don't know if -every- chess player's goal is to play chess better, but I will grant that it is mine. However, different players may prioritize different aspects of the game. For me, the part I most want to improve are my openings. I have never claimed that analyzing the opening moves of Stockfish and Masters is the best way to improve one's overall games. My main focus has always been on the openings and I've made no bones about that. I also won't deny that it would probably be best to have a personal tutor- if nothing else, they could explain -why- Stockfish chooses certain moves and perhaps be quite helpful in explaining when Stockfish doesn't correctly analyze a given position. However, tutors tend to cost a fair amount of money. 

 

As to books, as I've mentioned, I have looked at a few chess books over the years. They're alright, but ever since I started looking at moves that Stockfish comes up with in the opening, I've just found that to be more interesting as a general rule. The one thing that is relatively affordable is getting 10 lessons a day from the Platinum package, so I've begun to do that.

Spochman

It is great that you are so motivated. the question is, how to exploit the time that you have to invest in chess studies to gain the maximal improvement?

By memorizing lines of openings according to any engines best choices you will not play better chess. You will run out of the memorized moves, let's assume at move 12, or any other number, and from then on it is your ability to identify your positional goals and the ability to solve them what matters. 

Therefore, your best investment would be in the theory of goals identification in chess, which will enable you also to play openings independently without memorizing. 

Phoenyx75
Spochman wrote:

It is great that you are so motivated. the question is, how to exploit the time that you have to invest in chess studies to gain the maximal improvement?

By memorizing lines of openings according to any engines best choices you will not play better chess. You will run out of the memorized moves, let's assume at move 12, or any other number, and from then on it is your ability to identify your positional goals and the ability to solve them what matters. 

Therefore, your best investment would be in the theory of goals identification in chess, which will enable you also to play openings independently without memorizing. 

 

You vie me too much credit- most of the opening moves I make in dailies I don't memorize- I use my database to remember them for me. However, I am certainly interested in this goals identification as well as positional goals you speak of, and thank you for giving me a free lesson on Tuesday :-).