A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

This has been a very interesting thread and will no doubt continue for some time. Might I make some further suggestions to Mainstreet's idea for a tourney?

It would be good to have some sort of data to backup/dismiss the many claims that have been made on this topic.

The main suggestions have been

a) users ratings are higher than they would be if they did not use DBs/books

b) people who use DBs are not always helped because of a lack of understanding of strategy/plans that follow the book openings

c) users ratings would be x points less if they played as non-users

To investigate these points we would need to run several simultaneous tournaments (each with a range of about 250 - 300 ratings points as follows:

User vs Non-User Tourney 1 - Players play as they normally would

User vs Non-User Tourney 2 - No use of DBs/books etc. is allowed - everyone plays as they would OTB

User vs Non-User Tourney 3 - Everyone makes use of whatever resources are allowed according to chess.com rules

For each tourney each player plays every other player once as black and once as white. There should be a maximum of 8 - 10 players per tourney. The entrants would need to be the same for each of the 3 tournaments to give any sort of reliable data.

There will be cross-over of the grading ranges so that a complete picture can be established.

I'm not sure whether it should be rated or unrated - I'd imagine rated matches would be taken more seriously, but there'd be more temptation for people to break the rules. Thoughts on this?

The tournaments would be easier to sort by invitation. I'm sure there are a few contributors to this topic who'd be happy to set up a few tournaments (including myself). If there are 12 or less players per tourney then any of the premium subscribers could do it.

Who is interested?

Amusing comment. :))

 Evil_Homer,for you're a fine one to talk!

I didn't get it... please explain to "stupid" Swede

 And who cares?

The "stupid swede" thinks he understands :-)

But he don't understand gonnosukes comment fully... does this mean correspondence chess to you is nothing more than practice?

An none was,respect!

The distinction between User and Non-User is on the basis of these COT guidelines:  

NON-USERS "... play "over the board" chess, as if we were playing face to face, and unable to use analysis boards, opening books, or any other external aid to help us, we promised we would use our knowledge and experience only to play the game."   ( http://circleoftrust.bravehost.com/ )   

USERS use any or all legitimate facilities while playing the game. This EXCLUDES Chess Engines (such as Fritz) and Endgame Tablebases. (chess.com playing rules)

Counted up to (and including) post #545.

May I be the first to commend your wisdom in updating the tally within the initial posting - which is the first thing that everyone sees when they read this topic.

May I also be the first to request that you consider listing users BEFORE non-users - for consistency with what you - and everyone following your lead - have done throughout the tally?

A logical request from a good friend... so, why not?

Users - 68, Non-Users - 69

My experience was that closed book exams are actually easier than open book exams. With closed book exams, the professor has to give credit for knowing the simple and basic stuff. With an open book exam, knowing the basics counts for nothing and the questions have to be more difficult.

Could someone please explain what is to be shown by a tournament between users and non-users? Exactly what is at stake here in this debate?

This reminds me of the Great Onion Debate of my youth. As a kid I did not like raw onions, and for some reason I was constantly beset by people who tried to convince me of the "error" of my ways. The problem with this effort was that whatever reasons could be offered as to why I should eat onions were refuted by one simple fact: I did not like onions. I never tried to stop others from eating as many onions as they wanted; I only asked to be permitted to eat my food as I wanted -- onion free.

For whatever reason, there seems to be an tendancy to fight against people who don't exactly see things the way we do. It seems to me that some people tend to assume that someone else's decision to do things differently is an attack on the way they do things. I find that to be an invalid conclusion.

There are reason for and against using all legal aids, and they seem to have been spelled out several times in the large number of posts on this thread and others. I think it is counterproductive to try to show one side or the other of this disagreement to be "correct."

As I have said several times, I only object to the assumption -- erroneous, as I have tried to explain -- that using all legal aids is somehow "impure," "unfair," or any other of the adjectives that have been stuck to it.

I think if we want to be "purists," we should concede that there are only two types of chess: (1) OTB, person-to-person, with long time controls and (2) everything else. It seems to me to be somewhat silly to argue about which variations in category (2) are pure or impure.

It takes all kinds to make a world, and I for one am thankful that everyone does not do things exactly the same way that I do. What a boring world that would be if they did.

The key question to my mind is: do you like raw onions now?

I'm not seriously expecting any tournament between users and non-users to produce any any valid scientific data about the effectiveness of use or non-use. As Evil_Homer, has helpfully pointed out, at .04993% of the ever-registered chess.com population, the sample size is too small. Also, there are too many uncontrolled variables.

The result that I would look for from a tournament with such a mixing of views, is to forge a few friendships and increase the overall level of understanding.

 "Many of my best chess moments have been vs. opponents I'd rather not have played or were social opposites. By eliminating or reducing randomness, you narrow the whole chess experience for many. Chess is chess. Nothing else matters while you sit at a board." wrote xMenace in this thread  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/who-is-player-x

I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that I might subject myself to attempts to get me to eat onions.

User!

I have been playing correspondence for 45 years. I have a huge library and I have read most of the books and mags! Computers were a joke back in the day. Now any tyro can use an engine to cause me problems with tactics. I can no longer play OTB chess as I take meds that kill my concentration after 4 or 5 hours play. I win a master one round and lose to a 1500 the next! I have held a master rating in correspondence before the computer era and still do. The ICCF not only allows databases And the use of engines , but encourages them. To me databases are just books as PGN. The engines are another matter! When I first complained to the USA rep in ICCF that my opponent used some kind of engine to beat me in a rook endgame he filled me in on the new rules. So i found out I will lose most of my rook endings unless I buy an expensive table-base.I have not purchased it yet but found new ways to transpose to other types or mixed endings. Personally I feel we should all follow the rules no matter what. This website says no cheating by using engines to play and think for us.So be it! I beat a Russian and he hints of engine use. I can`t beat his brains out with out damaging my new laptop! Where does that leave me? OK , he has sour grapes cause he got a sound spanking! Cool with most people , not me. I love the analysis of positions, not so much the actual playing against people. I don't care if BOZO uses their computers to play chess or have safe sex! Chess is a big ego trip with players. Not me. I lost that many years ago. I play and analyses for the love of learning the hidden nuances that hide in most positions. So,I do not care if you use your fritz or Chester or chuko, if you win I learn. I will adapt until I win. So my advice to some players on here is grow up and quite crying about the stupid computers already or change your rules to keep people honest! 

A tournament would give us some idea of the effect of use or non-use on ratings. It wouldn't be definitive because of the number of people involved but it would give some idea. At the start of the discussion there were some numbers being thrown about as to how much use or non-use might effect your ratings. There were also a few people with very polarised opinions, but it seems that the general tone of the thread is becoming much more live-and-let-live than it was originally, so I guess it's no longer a viable option. Hey ho. Give each other a cuddle.

There are two different types of tournament being discussed.

1. One where each 'side' just plays their own style of game. If pairs of users vs. non-users play and within each pair, the ratings are similar, neither 'side' should get an overwhelming number of wins. By itself, this tournament would tell us nothing.
   
2. The second where users would be required to play as non-users. We would expect [some of] the users to perform less well than if they were playing as users. This might tell us something - in conjunction with the first tournament.

 No, I use the Kama Sutra to figure out my cuddling options...