A 326 point difference? I can get my 2300!
A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS
Sort:
artfizz wrote:
MainStreet wrote:
Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
It could be argued from the survey results that using extra facilities ("using DBs" for short) is more prevalent among experienced players (where rating is taken as a measure of experience).
It can hardly be argued (from the survey results) that using DBs leads to greater experience.
I would hazard that the opposite is much more likely to be the case: greater experience leads to using DBs.
Then, the burden of proof is on your side.
Sparta wrote:
A 326 point difference? I can get my 2300!
YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 
artfizz wrote:
MainStreet wrote:
Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
It could be argued from the survey results that using extra facilities ("using DBs" for short) is more prevalent among experienced players (where rating is taken as a measure of experience).
It can hardly be argued (from the survey results) that using DBs leads to greater experience.
I would hazard that the opposite is much more likely to be the case: greater experience leads to using DBs.
I completely agree, nobody has ever become a GM because they have used a database to its full extent. However, GM's may find them useful occasionally and may browse them time to time.
Sep 23, 2008
0
#546
MainStreet wrote: Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
artfizz wrote: It could be argued from the survey results that using extra facilities ("using DBs" for short) is more prevalent among experienced players (where rating is taken as a measure of experience).
It can hardly be argued (from the survey results) that using DBs leads to greater experience.
I would hazard that the opposite is much more likely to be the case: greater experience leads to using DBs.
MainStreet wrote:
Then, the burden of proof is on your side.
Take this as a working hypothesis : using DBs leads to higher rating.
Two basic assumptions being made are that (a) using DBs gives a temporary ratings boost; and that (b) if DB uses ceases, ratings drop.
We could attempt to test this by taking pairs of users and non-users, matched by ratings, and let them play a series of games - both players without assistance. IF the sample size is suitable and IF the users perform significantly worse, that would be evidence in favour of the hypothesis.
We could also attempt to test this by taking pairs of users and non-users, matched by ratings, and let them play a series of games - both players with assistance. IF the sample size is suitable and IF the non-users perform significantly better, that would be evidence in favour of the hypothesis too.
One difficulty though, is that whereas some users seem prepared to play as non-users - for the sake of experiment. No non-users are prepared to play as users - for the sake of the experiment.
Thus, in saying: "the burden of proof is on your side" (i.e. the user side) - you are also indicating that the burden of playing differently is on your side to obtain this 'proof'.
As several users have emphasised: users are quite content to play the way they do - and don't feel they have anything to prove.
Sep 23, 2008
0
#547
In order to determine what impact DB use has on ratings, I would use the following experiment. There are around 50,000 active users on site. I'd take a representative sample, say 5% i.e. 2,500 members, selected at random. I'd randomly assign them to the user group or the non-user group. I'd note their current ratings - the baseline. I'd get them to play for a period (one month, say) as either users or non-users - according to their group. At the end of the period, I'd note all the ratings again.
If the improvement in ratings of the user group was significantly greater than the improvement in ratings of the non-user group (by 20% say), I would deduce that use of DBs has a positive impact on ratings.
There is a world of difference between this scientifically based experiment - and any experiment we are currently discussing in regard to the TALLY group: sample size, selection of participants and lack of a baseline being the most obvious factors that put TALLY groups experiments on a false footing.
Sep 23, 2008
0
#548
artfizz wrote:
ChrisJC wrote:
paul211 wrote:
gumpty wrote:
i use my pea sized brain
Just intrigued by your pea sized brain, I have been in Manchester and spent 2 weeks way back in the early 80', I have stayed in Bolton at the Last Drop Inn hotel, and did not find any pea size brain??
So what are you saying, are you out of your ego and self-esteem?
where did that come from??
One can only speculate about the possible meanings here - but as much of this thread is speculation, that is at least in keeping with the rest.
1. gumpty refers to his "pea sized" brain. [Use of humour, hyperbole (exaggeration) and irony].
2. paul211 questions the veracity of gumpty's statement - based on lack of supporting data from paul211's own visits to Gumpty's stated stamping ground (Manchester). paul211 then goes a little further (than is wise) in attempting to psychoanalyse gumpty - and 'identifies' 'low self-esteem'. [Use of humour, taking at face value, identification (mentioning shared experience), satire and je ne sais quoi].
We should bear in mind that paul211 is of French extraction and that English is not his first language.
C'est la vie! http://library.thinkquest.org/J002267F/types_of_humor.htm
LOL artfizz that made me laugh :-)
Non-user
artfizz wrote:
MainStreet wrote: Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
artfizz wrote: It could be argued from the survey results that using extra facilities ("using DBs" for short) is more prevalent among experienced players (where rating is taken as a measure of experience).
It can hardly be argued (from the survey results) that using DBs leads to greater experience.
I would hazard that the opposite is much more likely to be the case: greater experience leads to using DBs.
MainStreet wrote:
Then, the burden of proof is on your side.
Take this as a working hypothesis : using DBs leads to higher rating.
Two basic assumptions being made are that (a) using DBs gives a temporary ratings boost; and that (b) if DB uses ceases, ratings drop.
We could attempt to test this by taking pairs of users and non-users, matched by ratings, and let them play a series of games - both players without assistance. IF the sample size is suitable and IF the users perform significantly worse, that would be evidence in favour of the hypothesis.
We could also attempt to test this by taking pairs of users and non-users, matched by ratings, and let them play a series of games - both players with assistance. IF the sample size is suitable and IF the non-users perform significantly better, that would be evidence in favour of the hypothesis too.
One difficulty though, is that whereas some users seem prepared to play as non-users - for the sake of experiment. No non-users are prepared to play as users - for the sake of the experiment.
Thus, in saying: "the burden of proof is on your side" (i.e. the user side) - you are also indicating that the burden of playing differently is on your side to obtain this 'proof'.
As several users have emphasised: users are quite content to play the way they do - and don't feel they have anything to prove.
We don't have anything to prove either, your honor.
Users - 70, Non-Users - 74
Sep 23, 2008
0
#552
i dont think that these percentages anywhere near reflect the true state of the site as a whole, i just think that the non-users are more vocal as a group, and 'proud' if thats the right word of there moral judgement.
i would guess that 80% or more of the site uses assistance of some kind (certailnly the games i have played would back this up ie 1200 players going 10 or 12 moves deep into theory in the opening).
Diana_L wrote:
Users-70 Non Users-74
YO!
Gonnosuke wrote:
MainStreet wrote:
Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
300 points sounds a little high. Actually it sounds very high, especially when you consider that the DB helps most in the opening stages. Having an encyclopedic knowledge of opening theory wouldn't boost a chess players rating by 300 points. It would simply make them very good at opening a game. When playing users who don't have the same opening knowledge, their encyclopedic knowledge would be useless since their opponent would leave the book and they'd be on their own. When playing opponents who are also very good at openings, again, their knowledge would mostly be a non-issue as they would reach the middlegame on even ground. In both cases, it's true chess skill that's going to determine the outcome not the opening knowledge.
It's a chicken and egg problem. Are highly rated players highly rated because they use databases or do they use databases because they're highly rated?
Either?
Gonnosuke wrote:
It seems much easier to prove just how much databases help if you use the non-users as a guinea pig. If a non-user has a rating of 1500 after 100 games, have him start using databases and watch his rating. It'll be very easy to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion about the value of databases and I guarantee that it won't be nearly as much as the non-users would like to believe.
If the "purists" don't want to tarnish their rating by using databases then create another account for the sole purpose of this experiment. Play some games with the new account and see what the rating difference is. This would be much more telling than pitting the two groups against one another.
I may be mistaken, but I think that we are not permitted to make multiple accounts.
Sep 23, 2008
0
#556
gumpty wrote:
i dont think that these percentages anywhere near reflect the true state of the site as a whole, ... i would guess that 80% or more of the site uses assistance of some kind (certainly the games i have played would back this up ie 1200 players going 10 or 12 moves deep into theory in the opening).
I would be surprised if the take up were high among new users. Both Game Explorer and the Analysis Board take a bit of tracking down. I think both are among chess.com best-kept secrets.
How often do we enquire whether an opponent is using these facilities? If someone makes an obvious blunder against me, I might at that point ask whether they were aware of PRESS SUBMIT to move. If they make the wrong choice in a tight situation, I might float the Analysis Board. If their opening is strange, I might ask the name of the opening - as a prelude to mentioning Game Explorer. Generally, we respect our opponent's private choices.
My standard conversational opening is: "May the best player win!". Perhaps I should change to: "May the best (equipped) player win!". Or, "I'm conducting a survey. Do you mind if I ask you something? Are you using?"
How do databases work?
Sep 23, 2008
0
#558
Mad_dog_96 wrote: How do databases work?
To see one in action, launch Game Explorer by ...
LEARN -> Openings -Game Explorer.
Make a move for white, say h4.
You'll be told it's the A00: Kadas Opening. A list of related openings are shown.
Database will be set to Master Games by default.
It will show you 13 responses by black, indicate the number of games in the database for each of these responses, and show you the proportions in each set of games where white won, black won and where it was a draw.
Now make your move as black, c5 say.
Game Explorer will tell you that the database contains games with 3 next moves by white.
This is nuts....in a tournament setting all players should compete on an equal basis or at least the rules should be written that way. I have a competitive air rifle club and there are strick rules on what equipment my students can use in each category. Why can't we have the same in on line chess tournaments...yes folks can cheat but at least there are some guidelines.
Non user strugling to learn the old fashion way - move by move....
Sep 23, 2008
0
#560
Jackleg wrote:
This is nuts....in a tournament setting all players should compete on an equal basis or at least the rules should be written that way. ...
Non user strugling to learn the old fashion way - move by move....
They do - and they are. Here are the rules.
How would it be if chess.com had a Tips Window - (a bit like pop-up ads). This feature could be enabled by default for new members, but could be switched off (or restarted) at any time.
It could offer snippets from the site Help, such as: why using books and DataBases during Turn-Based Chess is not cheating - and these could appear during posting in the Forums, during game play, etc. If they could be made relevant to the current activity, that would be fantastic (but virtually impossible!)
For example,
Did you know? The rules for playing TURN-BASED CHESS on this site...#1. You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. #2. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine throughout the course of a game, including tablebases. #3. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. #4. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). #5. EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed.
For maximum impact, only ONE of these rules should be displayed at a time.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/is-this-cheating
Per Artfizz's computation, the average rating, so far:
User = 1835...........Non-User = 1509
Difference = 326
300 has been a guess by some to be the number you add to the Non-Users' Rating to approximate their rating had they used outside sources while playing.
It could be argued from the survey results that using extra facilities ("using DBs" for short) is more prevalent among experienced players (where rating is taken as a measure of experience).
It can hardly be argued (from the survey results) that using DBs leads to greater experience.
I would hazard that the opposite is much more likely to be the case: greater experience leads to using DBs.