A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

 Now your talking artifizz,count me in!

Ongoing game of Gonnosuke and I: we didn't mind what format each used.

I played CoT OTB; I don't know what Roy (Gonnosuke) applied.

 in my experience, +- 50 points. I actually lost some points starting to use dbs (I guess there's an element of surprise playing non-book openings), and 0 when I stopped using them 2 years later. gained roughly 400 pts during that time.

about the C & D groups, they don't make sense to me. what's interference? I'm all for people playing any way they feel like, as long as they stay within the rules. but at the same time, artificially limitting your play by essentially random restrictions seems very silly to me. I can't see how that could be seen unreasonable, when I'm just sticking to the rulebook without making up arbitrary restrictions.

and the thing is, this whole topic is NEVER brought up by the db-users. it's all the same to us if our opponent wants to handicap themselves. -it's invariably brought up by non-users, in a more or less direct attempt to persuade others into playing with their favourite random rules. that's the only group I see as unreasonable (and I'm perfectly aware of that many non-users don't belong to this group).

(and as a side note, I don't currently use dbs. but I reserve the right to use them any moment I happen to feel like it, because that's the game the rulebook defines. I guess listing me in users makes sense, but still the fact is that I currently don't use them. so does the initial pro/con grouping even make sense? I definitely don't play CC with the COT 'rules', and never will. if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be on a CC site to begin with.)

"-it's invariably brought up by non-users, in a more or less direct attempt to persuade others into playing with their favourite random rules."

Does this mean that in your opinion Mr. Mainstreets agenda when starting this topic was not the one he stated in the inital post but rather (a little covertly) an attempt to "persuade others into playing with his favourite rules"?

 the opening post makes his position very clear by "2.  We may elaborate on our choice, but not to diminish the choice of others - as we respect others' individual rights even here in chess." -which tells me he had the same considerations, and wanted to make it clear that he's not on a crusade.

Cool!

BTW - i'll get the chace to see your capital next weekend... first time to Suomi for me!

Kiitos / Kaj

 well, many people in helsinki speak swedish as their first language, and even 50+ % in the neighbouring towns, so it's almost like you didn't leave sweden in the first place. except for proper beer and bread of course. :)

I think mainstreet is trying to be as fair about this as possible.  The problem is that the system in place is there because that is the only truly fair way to play online.  The honor system is great for OTB rules so long as all players are honorable but that is highly unrealistic.  Invariably you will have players claiming to not use books or dbs who actually are.  Now similarly programs are not allowed in online play but this can be tested especially if the player uses them on every move.  My point is that the rules are in place because it's the only fair and enforcable way to even the playing field for all players and that the winners come out of ability rather than someone who is cheating and someone who is not.

My second thought: I take exception to the idea that my rating is inflated do to use of a book or database.  My rating increases as my knowledge increases.  The books and databases do not keep me from losing a game they only give me new and interesting lines to try.  The reality is that if I stop using them nothing will change and I can say this with certainty because I hardly use them now.  And when I do use them the game is never on the line.  Let me also point out that this isn't because of arbitrary limitations put on myself it's because I find them less helpful now than I used to.  I'm finding the need to work off memory and reinforce the things that I have learned.  If a new line becomes apparent or necesarry to learn I may pick them back up. 

Users are not improving their play their tactical and strategic abilities stay the same.  I think the statement that there should be some sort of handicap for users makes it completely clear that you do not understand why or how the databases and books are used.

Anthony

user

Cool with me, Roy.

Users - 66, Non-Users - 63

when i can get off the junk, i'll make a twelve-step program to get people to stop using databases. i'll put a link to it on this thread so you can buy it at amazon.

GONNOSUKE (USER) -vs- MAINSTREET (NON-USER)
Gonnosuke won in 22 moves!

Well, the outcome is no surprise at all considering the huge discrepancy between the two gentlemen's ratings. But 22 moves in this modern age is nothing to sneeze at considering that MainStreet is not a novice in chess (with 700+ games under his wings in this site alone).

But the question of interest is: did Gonnosuke win because he used an opening database?

Let's see:

I analyzed the game and the opening went according to book until Black played 5...g6.

At this point, Black's position was not too bad although he's clearly behind in
development. But this is characteristic of the Fianchetto or Hippo defence which I suppose Black had tried before. Anybody who plays this opening accepts the fact that he will be behind in development but hope to compensate in other ways - a hypermodern philosophy.

After this, the two gentlemen were on their own. I did not complete the analysis but it was very clear that the player's discrepancies in abilities showed during the rest of the game and decided the outcome (not the database).

In my opinion, and with due respect to both Gonnosuke and MainStreet, had Black used the choice book moves throughout the opening phase (which obviously and understandly, MainStreet will reject being a CoT & Non-User), the game may have lasted longer and may have reached the endgame.

In that case Black will have the chance to experience and learn from a sound middle game and endgame positions that would have emanated from this Defence. But because Black chose not to follow the proven route, he misses the opportunity to have a better understanding (mastery) of his chosen defence and as a result he is stuck in the opening, trying to figure out by trial and error the correct continuation. 

For the Masters, mastery of certain opening/defence does not stop from the opening moves but continues on to the middle game and even endgame.  (The Masters understand the connection between the opening, middle-game and endgame positions that ensues from certain Openings/Defences. In fact, most Masters can tell from a middle game position, what opening or defence was used by merely looking at pawn structures).  

Have a great weekend!

If you are interested there are several non-users that might be better suited for Mr. Gonnosuke - I will check to see if they are willing. Of course several guidlines would need to be ironed out first...

I am sorry sir - I meant not to offend but respond to the previous post by MasterPatzer.  I did not intend to intimate that we have a "pissing contest."

I definitely did not want to insinuate that you wanted to, nor disparage your game with Mainstreet. This is the reason I don't normally post in these forums - too many misunderstandings.

But I do think that MasterPatzer might have been gloating as if there was a "pissing contest" and just commented on it.

Bowing out gracefully,

QTSii

MasterPatzer,

Let me begin by stating the first word that came into mind when I read the heading of the above post: "WOAH!" (lol)

An expression (or exclamation!) such as that has to have a reason behind it, right? Of course. But let me qualify "reason" first to avoid misinterpretations of the context...

Reason = logic + integration... (logic = non-contradiction identification)... (integration = conceptualization of observed logical events... example: to a man, different tables can be lumped into the concept "table", while to a non-man, the tables can only be observed as specific things, thus no conceptualization occurs).

Now, the reasons behind the WOAH!:

1.  Funny inequalities, as in LOL to the nth power! Imagine presenting Gonnosuke's name beside MainStreet! It's like seeing Muhammad Ali vs me! Who would want to watch a boxing match like that?

Reason behind the game: not at all about this tally. Roy (Gonnosuke) and I have been Chess.com friends for months now. It's been a pleasure and education on my part to have played with him, and most importantly to be given tips by him - based on his own experiences, his discoveries, and not about any book or grandmasters' tips. MasterPatzer, Roy is one of the best teachers I've had here in Chess.com. He's one of chess players whose play I have the highest regards. Putting my name beside his to use for this tally has no logical basis whatsoever. 

2. 22 moves... what did you expect? Less than that? Or more?

Reason behind my surprise at your pointing out the number of moves: Gonnosuke and MainStreet knew even before the first move that Mainstreet will lose.  He can beat me even if he is half-awake. Or maybe, even in his sleep! lol... Why? Because it is but logical to think so, as we've played before, and know very well who the teacher and the student are in this tandem. We enjoy the "process" of our games, not the eventual results.

3.  Your analysis... So you know that what I played as black is the Hippopotamus Defence. And you were saying that had I been a User in this game, I should have avoided Non-user's derailment from a "proven route".

Reason behind my surprise: who introduced me to the Hippopotamus Defence? Who played it with me to teach me its highly tactical complexities? Who taught me its blind doors, surprise traps, deep psychological tensions which require intestinal fortitude? You guessed it right - Gonnosuke, himself!

What you saw in the game is the "process" we enjoy in playing the defence. It wasn't all about winning but most importantly - the experimentations that don't exist yet in the databases. It's the discovery of possible "doors to be opened" in applying the defence that counts for the two of us. That's the environment, the logic behind our games.  

MainStreet, Non-User

(Note to MasterPatzer: Gonnosuke and I have another game running right now. You might want to "roll your punches" at it, too? No, you wouldn't do that anymore, I think, because it won't be a logical thing to do.  I hope you have a great weekend, too.)

Users - 66, Non-Users - 64

Come on non useres,don't be shy were nearly even!

to me a game of chess is a battle of wits, mine against my oponnents, therefore i belive if i used a chess engine or reference books it would not be my "wit" that gained me a victory! I win or lose using my mind only!

     I truly belive that doing so brings more satifaction in victory!

        None user!!!!!!!