A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

Sort:
jonnyjupiter
artfizz wrote:
Is it reasonable to expect users to play as non-users - to provide experimental data - if no non-users are prepared to play as users?

My original idea was to play 3 tournaments alongside each other:

1. Everyone plays as they normally do (a control sample)

2. Everyone plays as non-users

3. Everyone plays as users

The players would be the same in each tournament. It would be in the interests of an experiment and a bit of fun, but everyone would have to be open-minded enough to taste the raw onions. It wouldn't be fair for one group to try the onions if the other weren't prepared to, nor would it be useful as an experiment. As it is, it would only be a possible indicator, but it would put a little bit of evidence behind the claims being made earlier in this thread.

I am getting the impression that the majority of people aren't entirely interested in participating though, so it is unlikely to occur.

thegab03

And what if certain non users had no acess to DB?

artfizz
jonnyjupiter wrote:

My original idea was to play 3 tournaments alongside each other:

1. Everyone plays as they normally do (a control sample)

2. Everyone plays as non-users

3. Everyone plays as users

The players would be the same in each tournament. It would be in the interests of an experiment and a bit of fun, but everyone would have to be open-minded enough to taste the raw onions. It wouldn't be fair for one group to try the onions if the other weren't prepared to, nor would it be useful as an experiment. As it is, it would only be a possible indicator, but it would put a little bit of evidence behind the claims being made earlier in this thread.

I am getting the impression that the majority of people aren't entirely interested in participating though, so it is unlikely to occur.


Assuming 'guinea-pigs' volunteered, would these be standard chess.com tournaments? If so, how would you arrange that users don't play users AND non-users don't play non-users?

MainStreet
isaac_jay wrote:

NON USER.. IM PLAYING CHESS WITHOUT HELP OF ANYTHING... I THINK IT IS HAPPY TO WIN BY OUR OWN STRATEGY THAN TO WIN WITH HELP OF DATABASES..PLAYING BY OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE IS MUCH BETTER THAN USING ANY DATABASES.. BECAUSE YOUR ARE FORCED TO THINK WAT IS THE BEST MOVE FOR YOU TO DO..IT MEANS U ARE FLEXING UR BRAIN PROPER WAY TO IMPROVE OUR GAME..


Users - 68, Non-Users -70

jonnyjupiter
artfizz wrote:

Assuming 'guinea-pigs' volunteered, would these be standard chess.com tournaments? If so, how would you arrange that users don't play users AND non-users don't play non-users?

It doesn't matter if users play users and non-users play non-users (this would act as a further control sample within each individual tournament), nor does the final position in the tournament matter - it would just be the individual results that counted. If enough people at various ratings played then we would quickly see if 1700 user is regularly beaten by 1500 non-user when both are playing as OTB, but 1700 wins in the control games. It wouldn't be a large enough sample to be statistically accurate, but it would give an indication of what the differential might be (if any).


jonnyjupiter

Or if people didn't want to play extra games they could agree a draw every time they play someone from the same camp (this approach would force games to be unrated).

MainStreet
Duffer1965 wrote:

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.


Tournament between Users and Non-users? What I suggested at post #525 is a Tournament of the Posters in this thread.

Purposes:

1.  EXPERIMENTATIONS (for those Non-Users who would want to try outside sources while playing; for those Users who would want to try not using any outside source, and declaring it to their opponents; and those who maintain their stand in this thread for whatever reason);

2.  Friendship (imagine a User guiding and teaching a Non-User who would want to experiment on how to use any outside help - effectively and efficiently? There might be some "secrets" the Users have experienced which he/she would like to share, e.g. a preferred database, preferred books, among others.

3.  Fun (which what chess is mostly all about)

MainStreet
SatDiver wrote:

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! 


Users - 69, Non-Users -70

MainStreet
artfizz wrote:
jonnyjupiter wrote:

My original idea was to play 3 tournaments alongside each other:

1. Everyone plays as they normally do (a control sample)

2. Everyone plays as non-users

3. Everyone plays as users

The players would be the same in each tournament. It would be in the interests of an experiment and a bit of fun, but everyone would have to be open-minded enough to taste the raw onions. It wouldn't be fair for one group to try the onions if the other weren't prepared to, nor would it be useful as an experiment. As it is, it would only be a possible indicator, but it would put a little bit of evidence behind the claims being made earlier in this thread.

I am getting the impression that the majority of people aren't entirely interested in participating though, so it is unlikely to occur.


Assuming 'guinea-pigs' volunteered, would these be standard chess.com tournaments? If so, how would you arrange that users don't play users AND non-users don't play non-users?


Hey, fellows, how about "Just get on with them"? Smile

1. Create those three tournaments;

2. Announce the name of the tournaments in this thread; and,

3. And let's see who joins them.

Make them just for fun, not for any "conclusive experimentations". Nothing to lose, right? We might just learn some things in those tournaments which are beyond the numbers in this tally.

It has been said, The greatest aim of education is not knowledge but action." Smile

artfizz

Virtually every tournament on chess.com must be made up of a combination of users and non-users. This issue is not even raised - which is probably the best way. Rather than create another tournament like that, we could just go for a more informal approach.

Now that we have all made our views known, any of us who feel so inclined can challenge two or three (or more) people from the other way of thinking (or from our way of thinking) to a game. This avoids hitting tournament limits, and lets us control the number of concurrent games.

I didn't see Mainstreet's previous post. Let see who bites!

MainStreet
artfizz wrote:

Virtually every tournament on chess.com must be made up of a combination of users and non-users. This issue is not even raised - which is probably the best way. Rather than create another tournament like that, we could just go for a more informal approach.

Now that we have all made our views known, any of us who feel so inclined can challenge two or three (or more) people from the other way of thinking (or from our way of thinking) to a game. This avoids hitting tournament limits, and lets us control the number of concurrent games.


Good idea.

(Art, care for two simultaneous games - white and black for each - where you still play the non-user role, like in our first two unrated games?)

MainStreet

Users-Non-users Friendship Tournament (Unrated)

May someone with the capacity to create a tournament of unlimited players kindly facilitate one for us?

Purposes: Experimentations, Friendship and Fun

Suggested rules / format: (open for comments)

1.  Players: only the posters in this thread

2.  Outside sources: anything under the sun is ok, except for chess engines, which are not actually allowed in correspondence chess.

A User , whether a previous User or a Non-user who wants to experiment on the use of outside sources in the tournament, is requested to post in this thread if any outside source is actually in use. It's also interesting that the User point out up to what move number any outside source has been used.

In the same manner, a Non-User is to post in this thread his/her decision to play without any outside source. If at any point during a game, the Non-User chooses to use any source, for example opening a book - then the player is requested to post the shift in this thread.

3.  Starting Date: October 1

4.  # of days per move: 3 days

5.  Pairings: any suggestions?

6.  # of simultaneous games: any suggestions?

7.  Chess Opening: any

8.  Unrated

Note: this is individual play, not a vote chess format.

BrooksJ

User

MainStreet
BrooksJ wrote:

User


Users - 70, Non-Users -70

MainStreet
Diana_L wrote:

Are you sure no user posted their choice twi ce or more?


Artfizz has been kind enough to look into that. We took his tables - "Artfizz's Standings" (latest of which is post #546 on page 28 of this thread) as our official list of names for each side. There were some corrections to be made in his previous tables posted in this thread, but he has been quick to rectify them. If ever you notice duplications or omissions, kindly make a post here, and rest assured, Art will look into it. Thanks. Smile

rooknite

non-user

whenever i look at the explorer during a game my brain turns off and i just make the move that won the majority of the time. i use the explorer only after a game to see what i could have improved on

MainStreet
rooknite wrote:

non-user

whenever i look at the explorer during a game my brain turns off and i just make the move that won the majority of the time. i use the explorer only after a game to see what i could have improved on


Users - 70, Non-Users -71

csg

This may have been covered, 29 pages is too much to read - Do we know the average rating of both groups?  Do users have an edge because they use?  Are non-users not using because they are better to begin with?  

When does the vote chess game begin?

MainStreet
csg wrote:

This may have been covered, 29 pages is too much to read - Do we know the average rating of both groups?  Do users have an edge because they use?  Are non-users not using because they are better to begin with?  

When does the vote chess game begin?


1- Average rating of both groups? None, but you may compute them using Artfizz's Standings on Post #546 on page 28 of this thread.

2- User's edge? Some Users claim the use of outside source is an edge.

3- Non-Users are better to begin with? There is no claim on such.

Are you on the User or Non-User side?

gumpty
sorry i dont know what you are talking about.....is that supposed to make sense?