iluvsmetuna, I can't see your rating now but I think you are above 2300. You have studied tens of opening books to learn openings. What do you think about these posers pretending they know how to play chess? Straight out, what is your opinion on these issues?
The Unacceptable Flaw with Chess.com: Use of Game Explorer/DB in Vote/Turn Chess
Sort:
Why don't you address what's already been brought up?
Nov 2, 2014
0
#464
owltuna wrote:
This is your 11th Commandment of chess. I'm just asking for its origin which is murky. I can't find it.
PeterB1517 wrote:
Somebody, go find the damn correspondence rule history... which organization created it, when, and what did it say. Bill Wall's history, and other pages I've seen don't mention it. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just asking, what is the history on it?
For someone who wants everybody to do their own thinking, you sure fall short in the category. One would think you would leap at the opportunity to have someone else do your chess moves for you, since you are apparently incapable of any kind of independant thought whatsoever.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#465
owltuna wrote:
Quote function on android doesn't work correctly.
PeterB1517 wrote:
Somebody, go find the damn correspondence rule history... which organization created it, when, and what did it say. Bill Wall's history, and other pages I've seen don't mention it. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just asking, what is the history on it?
For someone who wants everybody to do their own thinking, you sure fall short in the category. One would think you would leap at the opportunity to have someone else do your chess moves for you, since you are apparently incapable of any kind of independant thought whatsoever.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#466
owltuna wrote:
Other people brought this up. Studying an opening and using the GE are separate things. Even in the cc world, you could be studying book and then playing game at same time. There is moral greyness if the same position is in both. But the fact that people wanted to read chess books while playing postal games, did not force correspondence inevitably to allow reference material. If you find origin of your commandment, we can discuss more knowledgeably.
"...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."
And of course, this is the whole reason access to published reference is allowed. Otherwise, no one who plays correspondance chess would be able to use their chess library, online or otherwise, so long as they were playing. That's completely impractical when talking about games that may last a year or more, and most correspondance players always have a game or six going at any one time.
If only this simple point was not being ignored by our hero, this argument would be over.
I did learn the openings I played in tournaments from books Peter and I don't use game explorer at all. It's not for me. I like a game between people too, not from a database, but correspondence chess has all these rules. Blitz is better but I've played too much of it and my form tailed off a bit, so I'm playing more correspondence now, but yeah ... The explorer is of no interest to me either.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#469
uri65 wrote:
OK, on and on about this point. I don't care what your chess skills are. The GE will guide you through nearly the best moves for every valid opening for many moves. You may end up in a game comfortable that you understand or you don't. Are you saying using the GE is easy or hard? Here you seem to be saying hard. Martinj who unfortunately left this debate agreed with you. Coconut says easy. others say easy. If hard, then you need to lay out the methodology. Lay out some the analysis of the numbers provided. Lay out what further learning needs to be done to become an expert. You are trying to saying that learning the GE =learning chess and I don't buy that. It is a subset, an aspect of the game, an aspect that shouldn't exist.
After some thinking I come up with this: the only way to improve in GE use is to improve your chess in general. Learn form books, videos, chess mentor, practical play etc. Work hard, analyse, have your own opinion on every move. Only through better chess knowledge and skill a raw data like GE will start making sense for you. There is no magic formula to add numbers and % and to come up with a good meaningful move.
I'd like your opinion on this.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#470
uri65 wrote:
thank you both iluv and mark
After some thinking I come up with this: the only way to improve in GE use is to improve your chess in general. Learn form books, videos, chess mentor, practical play etc. Work hard, analyse, have your own opinion on every move. Only through better chess knowledge and skill a raw data like GE will start making sense for you. There is no magic formula to add numbers and % and to come up with a good meaningful move.
I'd like your opinion on this.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#473
Captain_Coconut wrote:
You're still being dogmatic, but at least you're discussing it now instead of claiming that you just know you're right.
Here's a smaller scale example. Say you're playing correspondence chess, and you're learning about the French Defense. You're reading a book at that time on the French defense, and it tells you what's generally accepted to be the best response to certain moves that white makes. I would expect that even you wouldn't see a problem with that.
Now, say you get into the game a ways, and you notice that one of the example games in the book (further than you've read, and a bit over your head as far as theory goes) matches what you and your opponent have played so far, so you decide to follow it as long as your opponent plays those moves, since you see that black (let's say Alekhine) ended up winning.
This is obviously a misguided strategy, and when the two games diverge, you will not only not understand what's going on in that position, but it's certain that you won't pull off the middle and end games like Alekhine. In effect, you've led yourself down a path that you don't understand, and would probably have a better chance of winning if you'd played less "GM-like" moves, because you'd understand what's going on. Hell, maybe part of the reason Alekhine won was that he was playing someone rated 200-300 Elo points less than him at a simultaneous exhibition, and he had no problem winning even when playing sub-optimal moves in the opening!
In the end, that's all the GE or any database is: raw data. Following it blindly doesn't guarantee any edge whatsoever.
I just addressed it. It gives you 3600 class moves on the Elo scale since 4000 doesn't exist opening moves for moves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 at least. So you end up in position you don't understand. At least on move 13, you're not checkmated, down material, way down in development, or haven't made any other serious mistakes. Bad players like most of us are supposed to lose in the opening. We are supposed to not really know most of the opening we are forced to play. That is the game. If you want to be a master, devote hours a day to chess including an hour a day studying various opens. That is how it is supposed to be done. And you are all reacting this way cause you are so beholden to your crutch, and tied to your lies about why it is OK, but using an engine is bad.
PeterB1517 wrote:
uri65 wrote:
After some thinking I come up with this: the only way to improve in GE use is to improve your chess in general. Learn form books, videos, chess mentor, practical play etc. Work hard, analyse, have your own opinion on every move. Only through better chess knowledge and skill a raw data like GE will start making sense for you. There is no magic formula to add numbers and % and to come up with a good meaningful move.
I'd like your opinion on this.
Are you saying using the GE is easy or hard? Here you seem to be saying hard.
How on earth do you get that from what he said? He's said the same thing I and everyone else has been saying. That's a topic that you've refused to address, and it has nothing with the interface of the GE.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#475
alexm2310 wrote:
The fact this thread is still going strong is beyond ridiculous
I know lmao. It is very entertaining though.
PeterB1517 wrote:
Bad players like most of us are supposed to lose in the opening. We are supposed to not really know most of the opening we are forced to play. That is the game. If you want to be a master, devote hours a day to chess including an hour a day studying various opens. That is how it is supposed to be done.
At our level, the game isn't lost in the opening, it's lost because of stupid mistakes in the middle game, which are much more likely if you don't understand the development of the game to that point.
Nov 2, 2014
0
#477
Damnit, using the GE is not like using a crystal ball. It can be docomposed and documented. Earlier you claimed it was one step. Now you claim you must be an expert in chess analysis to use it.
PeterB1517 wrote:
Damnit, using the GE is not like using a crystal ball. It can be docomposed and documented. Earlier you claimed it was one step. Now you claim you must be an expert in chess analysis to use it.
It's getting harder and harder to track your thoughts. I'm not sure where you got that I was saying it's difficult to use. I gave you an analogy, but it seems to have upset you somehow.
It's true that you can't be a complete patzer and use it. No guide will help with that, because the barrier doesn't come from the interface, it comes from understanding the moves.
Perfect. I'm on mobile phone. I wanted to hear from you two: LongIslandMark, you on the whole seem to disagree with me and have disagreed with people on other who raised this but agree some info should be provided . What info, what is your opinion otherwise?