Databases - what is allowed?

You made me so curious!! Kasparov to achieve 97% agreement with the first choice of an engine? Or let's say with the first 3 choices, to handle the case of two moves evaluated almost the same. Please provide the game! I am totally baffled. Such a game is for sure the most well-known chess game ever played: for the first time a human managed to play at the level of an engine. I am so ashamed I have no idea what game are you talking about :((

Well, I get better playing mediocre players (2000-2300 ELO). I don't want to play a GM however, or, much worse, play someone who is well above 2800 ELO.

An extension of this line of thinking is that by consulting databases of master games during your game, your effectively getting assistance from players at a master level -- something that is also explicitly prohibited in the rules, yet that is precisely what the game explorer is.

Frankly, I really don't think that the case you've cited needs to be explicitly handled anyway because if you're correct, and playing out of such a database will look just like engine play, then it should be detectable under the current anti-cheating program that is in place here.  You just said yourself:

"I really don't know how someone could make the difference between consulting a giant database and using an engine to make 5 moves for me after I got to a position which is not encountered in Game Explorer."

If it's not possible to discern between the two, then both will have the same signature when it comes to detection of engine use and this is a non-issue.

Should we ban books as well?  They could quite easily be construed as outside advice.

costelus, I support many of your valiant efforts against cheating, but I cannot agree with you on this one. Other than directly analyzing games on chess.com with an engine, people should be able to study chess as they like. If they want to buy a state of the art games database and update it weekly, great. If they want to buy the strongest engines and have them discover novelties, great. They should totally be able to use those here on chess.com.

It is easy to tell the difference between such DBs and using an engine. When you use a DB, the other player will likely deviate from the stored analysis pretty quickly, after which the moves should no longer match against a strong computer. But obviously if someone is using an engine, then they will continue to match.

It really sounds like you're just angry that someone else has a better DB than you.

I think you miss a critical point:  Turn based chess at chess.com is neither OTB chess nor American Baseball and the rules with respect to what is and is not permissible simply aren't the same.

Your preference may be to play by the rules that apply to OTB chess, but the fact is that the additional forms of assistance, namely books and databases, are absolutely allowed in turn-based chess by the rules of the site and though you may not care for it, by accepting a game here you've agreed to permit your opponents the right to utilize these resources whether you choose to or not.

Mr. Oprah,

There is at least one crucial element where OTB is different from correspondence - that of the analysis board and it's cousin note-taking. OTB is OTB, great. In correspondence, you can set it up, move the pieces, take notes, set it up on several boards, whatever you want.

Richie, I agree with you completely.  I sadly remember when I quit sending out my postcards.  That db use is considered okay for correspondence chess is quite sorry.

But hey, remember what Boxer said, "work harder."  You see how that worked out for him.

Harpo,

I can't argue with your contention that "After 500+ games here, the experience feels very much the same as playing [on ICCF]."

What I can say is that very few of the 794 games I've played here were against bots. I cannot beat them. Perhaps I can hang with them for some time, as some of my games with Chessnut and MirceaH showed. But ultimately their playing strength is so far above mine that I am lucky if I get 1 or 2 draws out of 10 games, losing the rest.

OK, let's say I was trying to explain why players here with no OTB rating or with a low OTB rating achieve online ratings of 2700+. I simply thought that the only legal reason is the usage of a very large database. I use books, analysis board and a very small database (but with very good games). Still, I cannot compare with a lot of players here wrt the playing strength displayed in a game.

I am *NOT* against databases. I think they give the wonderful opportunity to play out recommendations (for instance, Ivanchuk says in a game "25. g5 is an interesting option, with the idea of ..." and you play it out). But, I think it should be a limit somewhere. 

Ozzie, do you want to play against me a line in KG? Let's say we agree upon the line (up to move 5), you give me 2 weeks, and then play. What do you say? 

I also try to explain why "risky" openings such as KG, Evans or Danish are not that common. Almost everybody here plays e4 c5 or queen's gambit. I am very surprised how many amateurs play such a complicated opening like sicilian. I don't know what to say about this, I am unable to play it OTB since I can't remember so many critical theoretical lines.

Hey costelus, you played out Ivanchuk's recommendation of Bxg5 given in his notes to the Karpov game... :-)

I guess your DB was better than mine. No way I play the KG against you. I've never played a King's Gambit, ever. So my playing strength in that opening might be around 1600. I don't think you'd need 2 weeks of preparation to beat me there. But how about you get two weeks of preparation in the Englund or Budapest?

Oh - that reminds me - I'm going to send you a private message about something I just remembered.

Hey Harpo, I won the Englund Gambit tourney.

But what do you think is the critical line against the Budapest?

I also play the Bf4/Nd2 line, for the same reasons as you. White gets the bishop pair and (I would argue) a tick over equality. But black defends.

I will freely admit that I am not a theorist on the Nc3 lines, and chose the Bf4/Nd2 line partly because of this. But there was a forum discussion awhile back about the Nc3 lines, with mandelshtam arguing that it is basically a forced win for white, and KillaBeez arguing that black gets excellent compensation for the pawn, along with an easy-to-play position.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=9994029

I'll see if I can find the forum link too. Yup, here it is.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/why-play-the-dutch?page=3

Your viewpoint [I note that you write in generalities] was shared by KillaBeez. Mandelshtam took the opposite view, saying that black is completely busted. He destroyed the black position in that game I linked. I don't know what his new handle is here (or if he has a new one) but he seemed to win the argument. I understand your argument, but I actually tend to side with specifics instead of generalities.

I don't think it's ironic, but perhaps it is hypocritical. Speaking for myself, I know that the most important thing for beginners is to learn the ideas behind some openings. Also speaking for myself, I know that what is a "crutch" for you helps me immeasurably in my OTB play. The games explorer, the analysis board, and the notes tab all helped me achieve a better result at my most recent tournament than I otherwise would have.

Perhaps I can create another topic about this budapest line, to keep this one more on topic.

Ahhh, yes...and that is the real problem.  Didn't Fisher say chess was forever ruined by computers?  Anything other than OTB is corrupted, and you could argue OTB is corrupted to some extent...but correspondence is on the honor system these days.  Use it to improve your OTB.  THough I guess I never understood the point of cheating online...no real money involved, and do you brag to your friends or yourself about your online rating?  Wouldn;t you be exposed the first time they saw you play for real?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/budapest-with-nc3

Ozzie: I haven't known that it was Ivanchuk's recommendation, I just played it because I could force some minor pieces exchanges. I also followed a game of Kasimdzhanov, found on chessgames.com. However, I was not aware of the forcing line ... Qb5. I guess you gave me way too much credit to force a draw there. 

I do not deny the role and the advantages of consulting a database. In another game here I was shown another move of Ivanchuk and the position I got into made me change forever the move order in one of my favorite openings (in fact the only opening I know to play after 1.e4 c5).

See: that's the problem. The outcome of the game is likely to be decided by the person who has the most complete database, and not by the playing strength. That's what I'm trying to say from the very first post. It is almost impossible to play against a reasonable opponent with a huge database of cyborg games a sharp opening like KG.

I played about 80 games here and I never encountered KG. I can say that in live chess/ friendly OTB KG is the opening which scares me the most, and it is much more frequent (at least 1 in 10 games is a KG).

I don't understand the problem then. It is not a problem that people use DBs, it has it's plusses and minuses. No way you are going to convince me that DBs should be regulated.

Also, why don't you go enter a KG tournament? If there isn't one, create it.

I think database use is fair if both sides are using it. So we should convey to the other that we are using databases to ensure fair play (by messaging).

If we are consulting books, we need not tell the opponent, then if the opponent is a database user there are gazillions of database variations missing from the book and those can lead a book user astray.

An experienced player can always discern whether he is playing against a human or a computer by looking at the moves - human moves do not appear mysterious (unless you are playing a master-level player) and apparently illogical (you need to go many ply deep to find the logic) - human moves are more based on strategy, whereas computer moves will be based on 100% tactics many-plys deep.

 richie_and_oprah,

your logic is flawed. It is like stating - "what I do is perfect, anyone doing anything more is unethical, anyone doing less is dumb".

My point is - every type of game has its own rules and ethics - we have to go by them - not create our own rule-book and book-of-ethics and expect others to go by them. We cannot expect/demand online players to follow OTB rules and ethics - better to shun online and go only live/OTB if that is the case. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".