The Unacceptable Flaw with Chess.com: Use of Game Explorer/DB in Vote/Turn Chess

The controlling interests of FIDE would be the aliens.

I believe they prefer the term "Galactic Overlords."

Their plan to take over the planet by getting everyone to play chess is not really working though.

Kid Creole and the Coconuts were not bad at all.

See Peter, it IS simple.  As others have stated, it is raw data.  Extrapolate what you want from it.  I have never read a single article on database navigation nor learned a single "technique" from someone else(if either even exist).  I use my own intuition and my own chess sense for navigating chess data, just like I would any chess book.  

Maybe people wouldn't be inclined to attack you if a)You'd actually admit when you were wrong b) show willingness to learn the TRUTH and c) not have this "last defender of what chess is supposed to be" dogmatic viewpoint.  

You hope Peter is a troll because the alternative is scary.

That's quite nice, isn't it ? Friendly and cordial.

Have you read all of Peter's posts?

Isn't it about time this thread 'petered' out ... ?

(sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

Back from activity, but will need to leave soon, but I had a pressing thought, something that I could have said earlier, but now want to say.

I am a member of the U.S. Federal Executive Branch, not a particularly important member at present, and in no way do I speak for the U.S. Federal Government, and my opinions are my personal opinions, as I am free to make them.

However, if a U.S. Government agency such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), or State Government had an interest in chess, then perhaps via legislative law or executive regulation they would rightfully regulate this website similarly to what I'm suggesting.  The investigation would begin similar to this:

Investigators: "Does a class of people have access to privileged information in the central commercial activity of the enterprise that enables them to an advantage?"

Chess.com: "No, the information on the Game Explorer is public."

Investigators: "What information do you provide about the Game Explorer?"

Chess.com: "We provide the basic information about its use.  A link is available from the help pages."

Regulation:

"That is not acceptable.  We need to determine if indeed this is privileged information that should be prohibited similarly to insider trading in stock trading, but if it is determined to not be privileged information or privileged information that is allowed through public disclosure, then you need to bend over backwards to provide public disclosure.  You need to write a comprehensive guide, email users about it on a regular basis, and provide other proper disclosures to be discussed.  This is just like banks and investment companies that send customers all kind of regular disclosures via email."

You may not believe this, especially if Republican: but intrusive government is the means to effect fairness and good outcomes for people individually and en masse.

 All this time I thought Canadians were bureaucratic socialists.

You do realize that under the watch of US regulatory agencies the United States was brought to the brink of economic  ruin or worse.  I don't think US regulators should be trusted with anything of such important consequence as correspondence chess.  Really, they could not even get the relatively easy task of regulating bonds right.  

How you figure that wholly publically available information is somehow being withheld is completely baffling.  What you seem to be railing against is that some people have through their own work have better used the tools and resources available to become stronger chess players.  You are obtuse and a socialist. 

In the theme of "peterism" I propose that wins, losses, and draws all be given a score of 1.  All players will start with an ELO of 2000.  Rating increases will be published based on the average of all games played thus those who do not have time to play are not unfairly penalized by those privileged players that do. 

Peter, you are a nut.  Your blind dogmatic mediocrity explains a lot about you and the current state of the United States.  Thanks for that.

As a Canadian I love Big government, healthcare and the second highest maginal tax rate in the industrial world.  A question to my gun-toting American friends: Does your Government screen specifically to employ sociopathic bureaucrats?

Peter reminds me of communist leaders back in my childhood in Soviet Union, all this talk about sharing, interest of one versus interest of many...

As already pointed out multiple times online chess is simply an implementation of traditional correspondance chess for the computer age. Allowance for opening books/databases is almost universally accepted in correspondance chess and that is reflected here on online chess. So simply put this isn't a chess.com issue rather a universal accepted approach.

There is a reasonable debate possible about offering an option of online  chess where use of openings/databases is not allowed but there would need to be sufficient demand  and this has not been demonstrated yet.

I would be reasonably supportive of having such an option but really Peter your arguments have gone well over the top of reasonable (eg the corrupt comment) and into fantasy (your last post 572)! Youve almost become a mini "dictator" of chess telling the overwhelming majority that the way things  are in correspondance/onine chess is unacceptable in your opinion and really its only your opinion that matters. Quite spectacular - either its breathtaking arrogance or just bloody mindedness because your post was subject to so much critiscism. I feel its probably the latter but others may disagree.

Anyway continuing. I'm sure if a no database rule was implemented (if given the demand and thus the commercial necessity) it would also be possible to have software to spot where game databases are being used. However the value in this is limited- simply put, in order to follow a known master game for any significant number of moves you need both sides to be using a database. Otherwise you'd deviate very quickly anyway and the database is useless. The number of move combinations in chess is so vast your not going to play the opposite side of a master game by accident!

I'd suggest the use of opening books would be very difficult to prevent - particulary for say at least the first 5 moves for each player and that increases with the ability/experience of the player. Many people play standard openings anyway and particulary the higher rating you get the more opening knowledge you'd generally have. At the higher ratings you'd naturally be expected to research your openings and given the long timescales of online chess, your normal chess study could easily intersect with the type of openings you are playing in some of your current games.

So, onto the use of chess explorer. The key point here is that this is publically available information. The two players have the ability to access exactly the same information. This is the key argument for chess.com to continue to offer this facility - it makes the use of a database transparent. What could be considered unfair is if one player had access to far more information than the other. If the facility is removed there is far more motivation for some players to find databases elsewhere.

Now there is a second point that the chess.com database is perhaps not the best out there. To be honest I'm not particularly bothered but this could be considered further.

Ultimately you need to understand the position your playing, I've played games where my opponent is clearly following a master game but then blunders very quickly after the game deviates from book/database.  Use of these just ends up making the middle game and end game more important and allows players to get through the opening with a  reasonable chance for a good position without the need to a massive memory for openings. What they do with it then though purely depends on their ability.  

Of course the data base includes all games, including bad opening variations which could have still resulted in a win following an opponents blunder.

Finally of course no need to play online chess, live chess definitely does not allow databases!

Sounds like you're going to need a Chess Czar, then.  Maybe you should run for the position; your singular vision is obviously what everyone needs to keep God's game on course and pure.

All this on the same page. Nice feat.

Or should I say, nice...

*throws up*

It is amazing how threatening you find subject. one good response. will respond to other posts.

need help speak English

Very eloquent.