PeterB1517 wrote:
Reply to this tomorrow.
How about you reply to all the things that actually warrant replies first?
Your avoidance is pathetic.
The Unacceptable Flaw with Chess.com: Use of Game Explorer/DB in Vote/Turn Chess
Sort:
Nov 3, 2014
0
#543
Algebraist wrote:
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!
Though I'm tired, and didn't want to deal with this thread anymore today, I owe a response on this message which was in depth.
"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."
Yes, somebody decided that when chess went to Internet, and they established multi-day chess, they would follow traditional correspondence rules. The majority of websites, including Chess.com, went along with that evidently. I don't know if there any sites that do not. If there are sites that do not do it, then it is not universal. But we can assume it is. I'm saying that Chess.com, in its leadership role, should reverse this bad decision. I've talked thoroughly about the difference between the GE and the traditional reference material allowed such as MCO where a line would be provided, and the most you would get is basically a symbol: advantage for one side. Contrast that with GE where you get a list of moves (also in MCO), the number of masters+ playing that move (not in MCO), and the win/loss/draw % of each CM (not in MCO). It's vastly different, and the information in the GE provides definitive information on what is the best move, or at least what are your few prime candidates far into the game.
"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."
Actually, the corrupting influence of this DB and CC's bad rule on chess has been so profound that it has made a large segment of the chess population deviate from what should be obvious: that the game should be played by a person on his own, to now being supportive of using an extremely helpful tool for 1/5 to up to 1/2 of the game. But, this is the same argument that Uri has put out. We can not judge the chess world's opinion based on who is commenting on this thread. The people commenting on this thread are the people who are most adamantly opposed to any change in the rules, and those who may support a change in the rules may have been silenced by the strong opposition, though it is obviously not having that effect on me.
"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."
So, now you have to degrade your thoughtfulness by joining in in the insulting. I don't think that my post 572 relating on how a federal agency would regulate this commercial activity in a similar manner to what I'm suggesting is over the top. Way earlier in the thread, I stated all the ways that use of the GE is corrupting, and Chess.com is corrupt for allowing it. I pointed out another way above. If you're really interested, I can find it, but indeed I do believe it is corrupt and corrupting. It is revolting to see a perfect game of two minds being destroyed by a bad rule, technology, and people dependent on a crutch.
"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."
1) I'm advocating for the GE to be removed during game play, not from Chess.com. Furthermore, for there to be a rule against accessing an active, existing position on it, or a similar tool by the honor system. Continuous opening DB accessing could be detected if the rule was overturned.
2) I'm giving you the benefit of restating arguments though I've stated multiple times before. Some players don't even know that the GE exists. Some players know it exists, but don't know really how to use it. Most people here agree it takes a good amount of practice using it before you get the hang of it. There is disagreement about how much difficulty there is in using it. The existing guides on chess.com are minimal. From a brief survey of web resources, there isn't much that is publicly available and free. There may be a ChessBase book for purchase for $30 physical /$15 Kindle that gets into the details. There may be some YouTube videos. I'm sure if you search enough there is some good info. I've written a guide on post #390 to equlize the knowledge, and there is no reason other than people wanting to hoard knowledge that it shouldn't be improved by someone with the appropriate chess knowledge, and published prominently for the benefit of the most people. What is unfair is the disparity of knowledge about the GE, and lack of resources to learn more about it unlike any other aspect of the game.
"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."
All these paragraphs basically go together. Master level blunders are far and few between and don't sway the aggregration present in the GE. This argument about the GE leading a person to a game that the player doesn't understand has been repeatedly made. It may be true, but for whatever moves the GE provides, it provides very good moves.
"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" is a key sentence, and something I've been arguing. I think this is the motivation of why people are so adamant about keeping this crutch. But that is part of the game of chess, that each person specializes in a different opening, and you don't know what they specialize in before you play them. You don't get to act like a master, comfortable in the majority of openings as an 1800. As a 1500, you may fall for an opening trap. As a 1700, you may get an inferior position because the person understands the opening better than you As a 1900, you may have good general knowledge of the opening, but the competitor is a specialist. In some games, you'll get to play your speciality. That is the game, and that is the motivation for learning openings.
"Finally of course no need to play online chess, live chess definitely does not allow databases!"
Turn Based Chess (TBC) is central to Chess.com. It is used throughout competion on Chess.com, for: 1) TBC, which is widely played; 2) Vote Chess; and 3) Team compeition, which almost definitely should be a competitive activity free of assistance.
But overall, your comment was one of the better ones.
Peter, games are played for pleasure. I get more pleasure from playing correspondence chess with possibility of consulting GE or other databases. I have no interest in playing your variant. When I want to play without GE - I do it right here at chess.com. And I don't care if my opponent is using GE.
You can't beat this argument Peter.
By the way have you tried Chess960? It's fun and fits pretty well your idea of playing "on your own".
owltuna wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Yet another fundamental mistake on your side Peter - you can't assign rating to moves - it's mathematically meaningless. Either provide us a formula for doing this (like Elo did for players rating) or admit you were wrong.
A rating could be assigned to a move, by computer analysis. This, of course, would be subject to which engine was used, what the depth of analysis is, etc. Chess.com forbids access to databases where computer analysis is used to rate the moves in the database.
I still don't see how. What rating do you assign to e4 and why?
You two might be talking about two different things (and not necessarily in disagreement). Moves can be evaluated and the position at that point can be assigned a number showing who has an advantage and how much of an advantage. Of course there are no Elo ratings for moves, and sometimes the best move is obvious to even a low-rated player. Other times the best move is only found under intense analysis, which even a GM wouldn't have been able to find OTB.
owltuna wrote:
uri65 wrote:
owltuna wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Yet another fundamental mistake on your side Peter - you can't assign rating to moves - it's mathematically meaningless....
A rating could be assigned to a move, by computer analysis....
I still don't see how. What rating do you assign to e4 and why?
What I'm saying is, the numeric value of the computer analysis would be the rating. There is an online database that uses this technique, and it is specifically against chess.com rules to use it. I am not arguing for or against the usefulness of such a rating, I'm just saying that it exists.
Of course we can do this but then I prefer to call this value "computer evaluation" in order not to confuse it with player's ratings. I was just trying to say that Peter's complain about "1500 players making 3000 moves" makes no sense.
owltuna wrote:
uri65 wrote:
....
Of course we can do this but then I prefer to call this value "computer evaluation" in order not to confuse it with player's ratings. I was just trying to say that Peter's complain about "1500 players making 3000 moves" makes no sense.
...
On chesstempo.com, a user will get a list of the average rating of players who have played a particular move. Maybe this is closer to the idea of assigning an ELO rating to a move, but of course, it's still just approximation. I suppose if you get down to two games where one is between masters and the other is from an Under-1200 championship, you would choose to follow the master game.
...
On chesstempo.com problems have their own ratings. This is fine because you can see it as problem competing against a player. If problem "wins" its rating goes up. But 1500 problem is served to limited range of players - let's say from 1300 to 1700. I guess in these conditions average rating makes more sense. But e4 is played by everybody from total beginner to world champion - so what will the average mean?
Nov 3, 2014
0
#549
uri65 wrote:
PeterB1517 wrote:
Uri, you cannot judge just based on who is commenting. A 2300 player, possibly GM or IM (on mobile, can't check) agreed that DBs is not for her(sorry if wrong gender). Weak players and very strong players should be opposed to it. As I've said, it is the mid level players overwhelmed by the opening knowledge they can't know who want the help. Why are you having an emotional reaction to prospect of having it removed during play?
Please read your own post #1 if you want know what "emotional reaction" is.
I played correspondence chess on various sites since 2006 and they all proposed some kind of database. It's convenient tool for learning while playing and I don't see any reason to remove it. People are free not to use it if they prefer so. I use it only for 1/3 of opening moves at most. I agree that numbers should be explained but what you do with GE is up to you. Step-by-step instruction for using GE is nonsense, like step-by-step instruction for reading a chess book. I have several approaches to using GE and none of them is described in your guide. So what? I have the right to develope my own playing and training methods.
What struck me here is that you said that you use GE for up to 1/3 of your opening moves. At least this is some quantification. And when someone rolls over your name, and sees 1744 ONLINE CHESS thn you're purporting to be a nearly 1750, and making statements on here as one, when in reality, you are below that without the assistance of DB for 1/3 of your opening moves. BTW, Erik, owner and runner of Chess.com made a similar statment in his one posting on this thread.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#550
Additionally, while your learning is important, this is supposed to be competition.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#551
But if you agree that "the numbers should be explained" (which they basically are by the chess.com existing pages with the most basic information, then why hide this statement admist so many insults and disagreements? I had wanted to move the discussion to the guide, though really, haven't lost my disagreement with the CC rule.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#552
owltuna, care to admit/estimate what % of your online games you use GE for?
PeterB1517 wrote:
uri65 wrote:
PeterB1517 wrote:
Uri, you cannot judge just based on who is commenting. A 2300 player, possibly GM or IM (on mobile, can't check) agreed that DBs is not for her(sorry if wrong gender). Weak players and very strong players should be opposed to it. As I've said, it is the mid level players overwhelmed by the opening knowledge they can't know who want the help. Why are you having an emotional reaction to prospect of having it removed during play?
Please read your own post #1 if you want know what "emotional reaction" is.
I played correspondence chess on various sites since 2006 and they all proposed some kind of database. It's convenient tool for learning while playing and I don't see any reason to remove it. People are free not to use it if they prefer so. I use it only for 1/3 of opening moves at most. I agree that numbers should be explained but what you do with GE is up to you. Step-by-step instruction for using GE is nonsense, like step-by-step instruction for reading a chess book. I have several approaches to using GE and none of them is described in your guide. So what? I have the right to develope my own playing and training methods.
What struck me here is that you said that you use GE for up to 1/3 of your opening moves. At least this is some quantification. And when someone rolls over your name, and sees 1744 ONLINE CHESS thn you're purporting to be a nearly 1750, and making statements on here as one, when in reality, you are below that without the assistance of DB for 1/3 of your opening moves. BTW, Erik, owner and runner of Chess.com made a similar statment in his one posting on this thread.
Then it is a problem of someone making wrong assumptions. Once again - rating measures performance and not chess strength (whatever that means). Rating has correllation with chess strength - for OTB closer than for correspondence. Thinknig 10 times longer on each move will have much bigger impact on your rating than GE.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#554
dsstoink (pick a better name if you want people to spell it right):
"Peter, in your recent comments you have suggested that those of us who use a DB can't really play chess very well without this "crutch" as you put it. I take this as a direct insult."
It may appear, even in my recent comments to Uri that I'm saying that, but I'm not saying that. I don't know if you really believe I'm saying that or just putting that into my mouth to add to the accusations. What I said to Uri is that your rating is above your natural play without the DB. LIkewise, your online rating, if you extensively use GE is probably above your natural rating. Now, I will hear all the arguments about the importance of middlegame and endgame play. Yes, they are important, but this doesn't discount the important of getting absolute expert assistance on your opening moves.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#555
uri65 wrote:
Peter, I don't have any secret strategic guide to share - just few methods in using GE.
Method #1
Just copy the top move. Used it in the past. Still use it occasionally when bored/don't know what to play/in lazy mood. It always feels very dumb. And by the way you can blunder - once I made mistake copying the move - played Be3 instead of Bd3 - just moved the wrong bishop.
Method #2
Play 5-10 moves on your own. Then compare to GE, see where deviation happened, analyse, try to understand. Play next 5-10 moves etc.
Method #3
Get a book or two on your favorite opening. When choosing a move read books, compare to GE, try to understand the ideas (from books). Decide what you prefer.
Method #4.
Decide a move on your own but don't make it. Open GE. If your move data looks Ok - play it. If not - try to undersand why. Then decide what to play.
As you can see it's not rocket science. The key is in understaning of what is going on and where it is heading. Hence I'll repeat it again - you can only improve your use of GE via general improvement in your chess knowledge and skill.
Ok, I liked this post. It is not defensive BS, but information. I think this kind of analysis should happen post-game, and Chess.com should think about ways to encourage post-analysis. A simple way would be a radio button after each game, "Would you be willing to analyze this game with your opponent?" Yes/No. Yes, perhaps it is more useful during the course of the game, and more likely to be used, but there are costs to allowing the GE during games, for all 3 formats: TBC, Vote chess, Team chess, fair ratings, and other things I haven't even thought of.
PeterB1517 wrote:
Now, I will hear all the arguments about the importance of middlegame and endgame play. Yes, they are important, but this doesn't discount the important of getting absolute expert assistance on your opening moves.
That's what opening books are, Peter. It's all part of playing correspondence chess. In my earlier Alekhine example, if that game was annotated, you'd also have his reasoning behind each of the moves, and that's in the spirit of correspondence chess as well.
Anyway, back to the point, are you going to admit wrongness on ANYTHING people have proved you wrong on? Even a minor point like the stupid High Holiday quote accusation? Or are you going to keep being pathetic?
PeterB1517 wrote:
Actually, the corrupting influence of this DB and CC's bad rule on chess has been so profound that it has made a large segment of the chess population deviate from what should be obvious: that the game should be played by a person on his own, to now being supportive of using an extremely helpful tool for 1/5 to up to 1/2 of the game. But, this is the same argument that Uri has put out. We can not judge the chess world's opinion based on who is commenting on this thread. The people commenting on this thread are the people who are most adamantly opposed to any change in the rules, and those who may support a change in the rules may have been silenced by the strong opposition, though it is obviously not having that effect on me.
The fact that you not only deem your point of view as superior and demanded by God to preserve his special creation, but that you insist on pretending that there is this massive silent throng of chessplayers that need you to be their Joan of Arc, is just showing how twisted and surreal your narcissism is.
You have 1 supporter at this point, who is a known troll and is only supporting you to egg you on to another 20 pages of this...
Tilt away, Don Quixote.
tubebender, playing it "OTB-like" is a great way to train for OTB. I do it quite often. Just I don't care what my opponents are doing as long as they respect the rules (no engine)
uri65 wrote:
tubebender, playing it "OTB-like" is a great way to train for OTB. I do it quite often. Just I don't care what my opponents are doing as long as they respect the rules (no engine)
Peter's very hung up on ratings. I think that's silly, because some people on here cheat with an engine, and some play while drinking. Some people take several days to think about the best move and some take a few seconds before deciding on a move.
The ratings on here definitely CAN reflect ability, but they're really not important at all, and certainly not official in any way.
Nov 3, 2014
0
#560
_Number_6 wrote:
PeterB1517 wrote:
Coconut, I am not going to search for your messages in other forums, ...
Peter, you are creepy. You've creeped my profile and are searching forums for other's posts. You are a wierd one.
Anyway, I'm untracking this tread because you fail to consider anything written by anyone but yourself and you have been unable to provide a single example where use of a database has brought a meaningful advantage in either your games or anyone elses. I'd even be happy if you explained a mechanism where you could evaluate this and I'll find the games myself.
In fact, you even fail to grasp the simple premise that if your opponent is using a database and you are not and the move sequence is being played out to the 20th move in a database that your moves are also in the database.
If you are right and everyone else is wrong then why start a thread? You are
obtuse or a troll.
I'm done wasting time on this.
"You've creeped my profile"... this is coming from the dude who did this twice to me, posting my game losses on this thread, before I did it to him, LOL.
Then he misunderstands me while quoting me:
PeterB1517 wrote:
Coconut, I am not going to search for your messages in other forums, ...
Peter, you are creepy. You've creeped my profile and are searching forums for other's posts. You are a wierd one.
I just said, I wasn't going to bother searching for Coconut's messages on other threads, but perhaps, if I get time, I will do it, just to see if I'm right about his behavior.
"I'm done wasting time on this."
One of the multiple times he threatens to leave. Maybe he has, who knows.
Peter, I don't have any secret strategic guide to share - just few methods in using GE.
Method #1
Just copy the top move. Used it in the past. Still use it occasionally when bored/don't know what to play/in lazy mood. It always feels very dumb. And by the way you can blunder - once I made mistake copying the move - played Be3 instead of Bd3 - just moved the wrong bishop.
Method #2
Play 5-10 moves on your own. Then compare to GE, see where deviation happened, analyse, try to understand. Play next 5-10 moves etc.
Method #3
Get a book or two on your favorite opening. When choosing a move read books, compare to GE, try to understand the ideas (from books). Decide what you prefer.
Method #4.
Decide a move on your own but don't make it. Open GE. If your move data looks Ok - play it. If not - try to undersand why. Then decide what to play.
As you can see it's not rocket science. The key is in understaning of what is going on and where it is heading. Hence I'll repeat it again - you can only improve your use of GE via general improvement in your chess knowledge and skill.
Reply to this tomorrow.