A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

Would using a permitted type of air rifle in a tournament be cheating? If not, then what exactly is your point? If someone uses all permitted aids in online chess, under what bizzare definition can that be cheating?

What exactly is the "old fashioned way" of learning "move by move"?

And what exactly is it that you think is "nuts"?

The vast majority of posters in this forum are so reasonable - that half the time I don't realise they're on the wrong side of the argument.

Well said artfizz - chess typically brings individuals together (even if they are users  - JK) 

With all do respect I must disagree with this sentiment.  Fundamentally you are the one who wants to change the rules so the burden of proof is yours.  It's not simply an issue of who uses more.  It's an issue of what is truly fair.  As I have said before OTB rules rely on the honor system.  Many players are not honorable and should have no need to be such.  I believe that our desire to win will often get the best of us and we will seek help and that should be legal and is legal.  It is the non-user's burden to prove otherwise not only through a survey but through logic and experiments that have repeatable results to show that it is unfair. 

Detractors will say that with my logic one should be allowed to use programs but according to erik it is detectable and therefore enforcable.  So it's not an unenforcable arbitrary rule like disallowing books or databases.

I know that you all believe the rating inflation is 300 points.  This is highly unrealistic and shows that you really overestimate what you can get out of a database and really displays your ignorance to the reality of their use.  It would benefit you to try it and learn what it is that you desire to destroy before you do so.  I'm not trying to be overdramatic but I want everyone to understand that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it the enemy or even bad. 

Remember that correlation is not causation.  I've dropped more than one hundred rating points in two weeks and I haven't changed my use of databases or books.  I've just not been playing well.  I'm not as focused so I lose.  If the databases were of such great help I should be maintaining and gaining but I'm not.

Anthony

according to ICCF, some historians say 12th century. i imagine the rules were the same... no rules (except that the use of witchcraft will get you burnt).  Analysis boards must have always been in use, if for no other reason than the large amount of time to kill between moves. i don't have to say that reference books existed well way before the computer. pretty much the only resource left is the database which a good book-user can replicate with the added benefit of the book strategy discussion.

tablebases are basically simple chess engines for won games. engines and tablebases are against the rules. Although i suspect that policing for abuse is either not done...or if done, a waste of time. but that is a rant for another thread.

I'll offer whatever you need. Hopefully I'll be able to learn some new openings in the process :-D

Sparta wrote:

A typically, gutsy reaction from a Spartan! If only there were 299 others like you!

Has anyone seen a tutorial on Game Explorer? Would any frequent user care to walk us through the thought processes, illustrated by an actual game? The example I used in post #631 (1.h4 c5) was hardly a typical game. With that opening, you could go out-of-book after one move!

"Are there any non-users who are willing to temporarily volunteer as database users so that we can finally get some solid data on how databases impact rating?"

You're making a lot of assumptions here, and not really thinking things through. For starters, if someone isn't bright enough to consult databases for their corr. chess games, on their own initiative, they aren't necessarily the kind of test group you want to try to determine a correlation between database use and rating. What you will get will be FAR from "solid data".

And the most important thing to remember is that here in Chess.com - our universe, players may choose to be either Users or Non-Users in all or a number of their games.

Users - 70, Non-Users - 74

The fact that you disparagingly refer to someone who consults a database as a "user" is ridiculous all on it's own.

Come up with a better word and I'm sure it would be used.

sure thing......."intelligent people"

You may suggest any term, but User and Non-User may as well stay in this thread as the context they are used is well understood by the posters.

The burden of proof isn't on anyone's side. If someone states an opinion either way they should be able to back it up with some sort of evidence, either anecdotal or statistical. Unless we get a large sample group we are unlikely to have enough data for any meaningful statistics, so I'm taking onboard the anecdotal route...

Mainstreet and I are having a game at present, where I am playing as a non-user. Interestingly the DB and openings books were rendered irrelevant because he went off-book within 2 moves. Therefore, so far in my experience, the use/non-use of DBs/books = 0 rating points difference. The thing I am finding most awkward is not using the analysis board. As such, my playing style is different to what it normally is.

I must say that I am not enjoying the game as much as I would normally (no offense intended, Mainstreet) - it's kind of like having one of your senses taken away and life doesn't taste so good.

Having said this, it makes me realise that I need a lot more practise at this sort of game before going back to OTB, so I'll be challenging a few non-users in the future.

It's your move.

So that means all the Non-Users are intellectually challenged?

No, it means all people who play chess at a correspondence chess server and whine about people who consult databases, are IDIOTS!

It's no different than going to a firing range with a pocket knife. Or a boat race with an air mattress. It doesn't make any sense.

Idiots? Isn't that so strong an offensive word towards chess mates who are just voluntarily sharing their comments. You just registered at Chess.com on Sept. 23, yesterday, and suddenly hit posters who are "intelligently" giving their time and ideas to something we want to talk about. Why don't you WHINE elsewhere with YOUR offensive word - IDIOTS...

I think this thread was supposed to be about the pros and cons of using/not using databases during games. I'm not at all bothered by an opponent using anything at their disposal within the rules of CC.