Would you say that looking up an opening, whether on the internet or in a book, is cheating? Even when you're not currently playing a game of chess?
No I wouldn't, only if to assist in a game I was playing (especially if rated)
Potentially every time a newcomer finds out it is in use, or a vetran who only has time to play games, and not to follow every forum post (like me) finds out.
its not only circle of trust who dont use databases, i venture most of my opponents have not
This comment is like a breath of fresh air. It restores some confidence in the site.
You should assume your opponent is using a database unless you've established, either thru communication or from joining a no DB group etc. that DBs aren't being used: The "default" setting for Online chess here is -- Databases in use.
I truly truly wish that the anti-database folks would try playing a game or two or three with database assistance... so they can see how it does involve work and thinking, and see how it changes the game in interesting ways... it changes the opening greatly -- the opening becomes more strategic, less tactical. But beyond that, it's chess -- the databases won't win the game for you... they really won't. Using databases lets you get a bit deeper into the game. It requires a lot of thought to do well, and it is _very_ instructive, if you pay attention and concentrate on learning.
There are anti-database folks with real strong opinions about databases who swear they've never used them in playing a game... so, uh, why the heck should your opinion carry any weight? You admit (boast?) not knowing what you're talking about -- you have no experience.
Linking the Game Explorer directly is a great idea. People who don't realize that it's legal (and IMHO good for your chess game) would be encouraged to use the GE database -- and be encouraged to get over their prejudices, or at least learn enough to have an informed opinion.
You should assume your opponent is using a database unless you've established, either thru communication or from joining a no DB group etc. that DBs aren't being used: The "default" setting for Online chess here is -- Databases in use.
I truly truly wish that the anti-database folks would try playing a game or two or three with database assistance... so they can see how it does involve work and thinking, and see how it changes the game in interesting ways... it changes the opening greatly -- the opening becomes more strategic, less tactical. But beyond that, it's chess -- the databases won't win the game for you... they really won't. Using databases lets you get a bit deeper into the game. It requires a lot of thought to do well, and it is _very_ instructive, if you pay attention and concentrate on learning.
There are anti-database folks with real strong opinions about databases who swear they've never used them in playing a game... so, uh, why the heck should your opinion carry any weight? You admit (boast?) not knowing what you're talking about -- you have no experience.
Linking the Game Explorer directly is a great idea. People who don't realize that it's legal (and IMHO good for your chess game) would be encouraged to use the GE database -- and be encouraged to get over their prejudices, or at least learn enough to have an informed opinion.
Man, I wish I could have stated my points that well!
Using a DB is so good for improving your game that when I start teaching some select chess.com folks, I will only accept them as a student if they use the DB.
JG27Pyth makes valid points for using databases for people who are learning. I think the point that is getting mixed up in this discussion is the recognition that there are (for my purposes of classification for this discussion) two groups of people with different objectives being drawn into this discussion; 1) the people who are semi-serious to serious about improving their chess skills using all available tools and 2) the people who like to play socially and think of the game as a two people discovering ideas and positions based on what is before them. Both groups are right in their opinions and neither should begrudge the other the choices that they make in how they want to play. For group 1, it is annoying to be told that it is wrong to use a tool which is legal and if properly used would help them improve their understanding of the game and for group 2 it is just as annoying to think that they are playing a social game using their wits and native abilities and knowledge while playing an opponent who is using a different set of resources. This will not be reconciled here but we should respect both sides.
With regard to having the Chess Explorer link on the page, I still think this is a poor idea. If you dont have enough energy to open a the link now and work out the openings, then the only reason that you would use it if the link were in front of you is to direct your moves. I find it humorous that people think that accessibility is the root cause of not utilising the tool when it is initiative which is the problem. If you cant be bothered to open the tool to learn openings and responses, then what makes anyone think you would have a better time learning if the link was more prominent? By the way, if you want Game Explorer available while you play, just open another window in your browser while you are playing. Chess.com doesnt need to program anything for this to work.
@amac7079
You make excellent points.
I think the best reason for a more prominent link to the Game Explorer is that it puts up-front, (yet without a hard sell) that DBs are a site-sanctioned tool for use in Online Chess. (It does seem the use of DBs comes as a surprise/shock to a lot of Chess.com'ers... I think that shock accounts for some of the negative attitudes toward the DBs.) Otherwise, I quite agree with your arguments against the chess explorer link.
Your breakdown of the two types of player was very illuminating... I think I have a better idea of where many non-db players are coming from, now.
(it is interesting that the majority of players would opt for this category) http://www.chess.com/surveys?keyword=database with thanks to artfizz for this reference.
If I wasn't so worried at people not getting it I would quite happily say "racialist" at Dan_V.
Personally, I don't tend to use the database during games. There are 3 reasons for this.
1) There's a high possibility that I'll play along one line and end up being forced into what the db suggests is a losing game, and if you play straight db moves this is inevitable in at least a few games. When you get in this situation it's not even necessarily something that at my rating I could work out went wrong, whereas with my own moves I have some idea of the thinking behind them, so if it does all go wrong I know what my bad thinking was.
2) I do enjoy learning openings, and I think it should be part of the game. I'm playing more and more OTB games, and it requires that I learn openings to give myself a good run going into things. As such, I prefer to learn openings by the book, and then try putting them into practice (and yes, I'll occasionally check the book lines during games).
3) I don't mind making mistakes, at the end of the day it's only an internet rating. I play here specifically to learn, and I think most people learn from mistakes better than learning the right way to do things. If I do learn from my mistakes it gives me a far better grounding in why certain moves are made in the opening.
Saying all this, I do use the GE reasonably regularly, and for the following reasons:
1) If I'm learning a new opening, I'll take a specific position from one line and follow some games through to get a better feel for where the action is and how to play and not to play the middlegame.
2) It's very useful for looking at what went wrong. It's great for using as a step below computer analysis for analysing games. In general, when I have the time, I'll go through my games and analyse them myself first, looking for mistakes, now I'll use the GE to see how far I get before it turns into a losing situation (before blunders) and give myself a chance to look at some better lines, finally I'll run it through an engine or two (primarily Fritz, I know it's not the best out there but it suits me fine), and more often now, that includes the chess.com analysis to give myself a rough idea of the flow of the game.
3) Occasionally I'll be thinking of an opening and wondering how I should proceed if something specific is played (no relation to current games, just in my head) and I can look it up straight away, with a minimum of hassle.
Do I think it's cheating? A small part of me instinctively shouts yes, but the above comments are all correct, if you play someone who is 1400 with a database, you'll still get someone who's 1400 rated, you just might need to play better in the opening to get chances in the middlegame. Personally, at my level, I really need to concentrate on 3 things, getting my openings in order, building my tactical knowledge, and forcing myself to not go into autopilot and play stupid moves (any advice on this appreciated), and I don't find the GE conducive to any of those for my learning style (it's just the way I study), however I can see how it would help people, and it's an especially good tool if you want to concentrate on the middlegame or endgame.
I'm assuming you mean "willing to use a DB" ozzie? And not only people who use a DB currently? Would seem a little unfair if you don't.. :)
2)
JG27Pyth makes valid points for using databases for people who are learning. I think the point that is getting mixed up in this discussion is the recognition that there are (for my purposes of classification for this discussion) two groups of people with different objectives being drawn into this discussion; 1) the people who are semi-serious to serious about improving their chess skills using all available tools and 2) the people who like to play socially and think of the game as a two people discovering ideas and positions based on what is before them. Both groups are right in their opinions and neither should begrudge the other the choices that they make in how they want to play. For group 1, it is annoying to be told that it is wrong to use a tool which is legal and if properly used would help them improve their understanding of the game and for group 2 it is just as annoying to think that they are playing a social game using their wits and native abilities and knowledge while playing an opponent who is using a different set of resources. This will not be reconciled here but we should respect both sides.
Very well analysed and though I would be clasified as a category 2 person I also consider that I am semi-serious - I go through the mentor lessons. Your analysis, however does raise an interesting opportunity (let's face it, this issue will not be resolved here and now. When new 'generations' join it will be brought up again and again.)
Why not split the two sides into major sections within the site, one where the assumption is that dbs are not used (it is interesting that the majority of players would opt for this category), and the other where the assumption is that they are. A player could, in fact, play in both sections depending on who he is playing against and what his objectives are for that game but the status of the game would be clearly defined. Although it may turn out to be more complex, one way of differentiating would be to have different colour page frames.
p.s. comment #51 should have followed this one.
That's the best idea I've seen so far, the only problem is that it couldn't be policed, and you'd end up with arguments down the line as to whether someone used an opening db or their memory in a non-db game...
There are, of course, several playing style issues on which the chess.com community maintains a spectrum of opinion (e.g. readiness to resign, speed of play, chattiness during play) as well as database/Analysis-Board use.
There are equally several mechanisms for identifying which side of the fence someone sits on e.g. group membership, extended personal profile (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/who-is-player-x), essential chess type (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/its-another-rollover).
In the final analysis, none of these issues seems to outweight the fact that we are all here to play chess, in accordance with the site rules we signed up to.
I just wish the database would make note of moves in an oppening that transpose into another titled opening.
I just wish the database would make note of moves in an opening that transpose into another titled opening.
There was a valuable Game Explorer discussion (that was actually about Game Explorer!) here http://www.chess.com/forum/view/premium_members/game-explorer-feature-request - that explored this very point.
Why not split the two sides into major sections within the site, one where the assumption is that dbs are not used (it is interesting that the majority of players would opt for this category), and the other where the assumption is that they are.
That's a lot of pain for no gain.
Using reference material is a long accepted practice in correspondence chess. It is not cheating and it is not unfair. Any such attempt to change this paradigm will simply not happen.
Those who have a problem with it need to get over it.
Those with a problem, need to play only non-members.
SirKnight56, Im willing to play anyone without a db. Send me a challenge.
joetheplumber wrote: Those with a problem, need to play only non-members.
SirKnight56, Im willing to play anyone without a db. Send me a challenge.
There are thousands of people here who choose to play NOT USING databases.
There are thousands of people here who choose to play USING databases.
It was discussed over the past THREE MONTHS here (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-tally-of-database-users--non-users), in a debate that ran to over 1000 posts. In post #810 of that discussion, there were two lists - DB-USERS and NON-DB-USERS - that anyone can consult to find opponents who share their point of view. Two groups were created as a result of that discussion: Tally Team Users and Tally Team Non-Users
Several other groups have been created containing members with polarised views on this issue: e.g. Win or Lose on your own Circle of Trust OTB
You can note the views expressed by members in the forums and choose to block members whose views do not accord with your own - so that you will not inadvertantly play them in the future.
This discussion was intended to be about the merits of a more fully integrated Game Explorer. If you don't intend to use such a beast, you probably won't have ideas about how Game Explorer could be improved.
A more colourful Opening Explorer tools is mentioned here http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/opening-explorer2
If the various chess.com tools (Game Explorer, Conditional Moves, Analysis Board) were more tightly integrated, we wouldn't have to keep making the same moves in each to keep them in step.
Tabs are all very well, but I find it inconvenient to have to keep opening the Moves tab, then the Messages tab. I'd prefer the separate window approach used for the Analysis Board and the Conditional Moves board. I'd like to be able to have a whole array of information panels available at the same time - as Rael proposed here ...
I imagined some kind of like, pilots chair or bridge of the Enterprise set up with the ideal chess arrangement of data and stuff. Console with endgame tablebase displays and opening explorer and analysis board. Like, every utility at your fingertips, the ultimate chess machine.
It'd be sweet to play chess like Kirk in the Command chair, Mr. Spock bent over his scanner, reporting to you about the next move in standard opening theory. Actually, I'd love to hear Leonard Nimoy say something like "transposes into the Nimsowich variation" or something. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-tally-of-database-users--non-users?quote_id=1542680&page=6
I'm with Art on this one:
There is no gray here. Using DBs or opening books for online chess is not cheating - that is white.
Using a computer to make any of your moves is cheating - that is the black.
I am a beginner. I just took up the game this May. My rating has climbed to the 1400 range - for online chess. I don't really know how much using explorer adds to my rating but I'll guess 150 points. This means I have a solid/strong aided opening, but then I quickly have to rely on my 1250ish game after that.
Overall, the site gives me a rating based upon those two components. So, if you play me, you get a 1400 overall player just as my rating indicates - There's no deception!
I know my rating is artificially inflated, but I also know that as a beginner I am learning solid openings much more rapidly than having to blunder my way through them - I like it very much.
And I like that it is clearly allowed and I know I'm following the rules. Now the computer analysis available is a new tool that I can start learning to eliminate my mid game blunders!
What's the big deal? If you are a 1400 player without it playing a 1400 player with it, you both have an equal chance. If you were sitting down with that player you would beat the DB inflated player probably, but you are not - you are playing online chess & he gets to use his learning tool - It's hopefully still fun for everyone!
Peace out.
PS Artfizz & ButtonC are both friends of mine on this site, sharing exact opposite views on this subject but I enjoy playing them both. It doesn't matter to me which one of them is using or not using a DB - It's already reflected in their rating so I know what I'm getting when I take the challenge.