A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

Why am I not surprised? :))

I am currently playing Cmixmax-UK under COT rules, if anyone's interested.  We played a long time ago and it was a very tough fought draw, I used analysis board but no dbase in that game.

All the best.

I'm playing with Gonnosuke right now. And to be clobbered by him, eventually. (Why am I not surprised at that either? :)) )

Stick me on the B side,proud to be!

Artfizz has been quiet for a time now. He must be dividing the two groups into four. Artfizz's Table Version 2.

Is probally causing trouble on other forums,lol!

lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

I guess based on me saying i prefer playing non-users, in many's minds will put me in category (what was it) "D" - and therefore making me unreasonable  . If so - i don't mind that !! I don't think i am, though 

But just as clarification... I for one don't want to "interfere" with how people play their game... i have never mentioned my preference on this when getting challenges... but i don't see the harm either in doing so, and asking if it's OK to play the game not using the aids. I guess i wouldn't see that as interfering with how people play their game - i would only state how i like to play and at the same time ask if that's OK for the other person... If it's not OK - i have asked and i can accept the challenge anyway if i choose so...

Makes sense?

That lands you to Category Non-User B.

I pop out for 5 minutes to get some work done and what do I find on my return? Two candidates for group D!

Though undoubtably entertaining, it would be grossly unfair to do a retrospective analysis of attitudes based on how people expressed themselves. In Mainstreet's words: "This is just a tally!". Many non-users indicated they were unaware of the Correspondence Chess basis underlying this site; unaware too of the existence of Opening Database facilities (and that probably goes for the Analysis Board too).  Some users have stopped using extra facilities because they no longer serve a purpose - so they now count as non-users. Indeed, some Analysis Board users hardly regard themselves as users. Most users are occasional users - whereas all non-users are continuously non-using!

So far, no single user has denied the right of Circle of Trust (or any comparable group) to exist - though they may not always appreciate the way its views are expressed. Equally, no non-user has demanded that Erik change the whole site to an OTB (or OTB-hybrid!) basis - though that may have been what they were expecting when they joined, and that may well be what they would wish for.

In summary, there is still no compelling evidence for the existence of group C or D. (If you'll excuse me, I've got some trouble-making to do. It doesn't do itself.)

Artfizz is a genius.

So far, Artfizz's Standings:

Users - 65, Non-Users - 62

Estimating the 'benefit' of the additional facilities:

experiment#1: user-a rating x plays non-user-b rating y - both playing as non-users. (2 games, one as white, one as black)

experiment#2: user-a rating x'' plays non-user-b rating y'' - user-a playing as a user. (2 games, one as white, one as black)

Final ratings: x'''' and y''''.

If experiment#2 yields more wins (or fewer losses) than experiment#1, and provided that the initial ratings x and y were comparable, we could hypothesise that use of extra facilities delivers a measureable benefit in terms of making a user stronger relative to a non-user.

The quantitative change in ratings might then be an estimator for the size of the effect.

What a beautiful mind you got there, Artfizz!

Now, what might be the sample size for these experiments? Will it represent the population of the random posters in this tally?

And what's in it for them if they win over their opponents - a game with you where you wouldn't move your Q till the 20th move? :) (just kidding... )

Rarely I research a particular endgame for the technique that exploits the circumstance or for the best play an underdog might use to try to maximise his chances. A few times I've mined for opening info. Retention is low. I learn best by assuming (just for the purpose of exercise - and better play) that my opponent sees much more, much better than I. Then I force myself to see beyond my normal view. Well, that happened once. If the point is to get all you can out of the computer or library, then it does make sense to hone your skills in the use of those resources. If victory were more vital to me I may avail myself of more helping mechanisms. However, my reward is the proving what's in the pudding. I suppose I take the long way around. For me it's more important to learn how to force my mind along the somewhat familiar corridors of the game of chess for the purpose of becoming more accustomed to correctly focusing my attention on a given matter. Admittedly, chess skills do not readily transmute into daily living skills - at least as far as I can see or say. But it gives me a sense of control, however illusory, to believe that if I try in earnest, my chance of success is better than if I exert no will.

Very well said!

Users - 65, Non-Users - 63

How about a simple tournament of 12 players: 6 user and 6 non-user - each playing in their own, inimitable styles. Work out the maths later.

May the best (equipped) players win!