A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

Likewise.

INTRODUCTION TO GAME EXPLORER (Openings Database).

Here's a much more common opening:

(Launch Game Explorer from LEARN -> Game Explorer - if you want to work through it.)

After 3 moves, Game Explorer contains no games with this opening sequence. As several people have pointed out, the assistance from Game Explorer is limited to the first few moves.

For white's second move, there are 27 possibilities. The Master DB contains games with 21 / 27 moves.

2.g3 is the most popular move.

2.Nd2 is the move showing the greatest percentage wins for white.

The moves that Game Explorer doesn't mention - such as 2.Bd2 - are hopefully ones that no-one in their right mind would consider anyway. That still leaves a lot of sensible moves. The stats. in Game Explorer are a double-edged sword. If you just pick lines on popularity, that will surely lead you astray.

Reading all of his other posts will reveal a great deal more.

A few things to remember about game explorer:

1) In the drop down menu you can choose your own games instead of master games - this will give you an idea of when a line goes wrong for you. A very useful retrospective tool.

2) The likelihood of a win is a bit misleading - it can often change dramatically a move or two down the line. Check a few moves ahead before opting for a move at a glance.

3) Remember that the database consists of master level games, so they generally knew the strategy behind their openings. Going in blindly picking obscure openings is likely to end in disaster. Don't go for the Sodium Attack.

4) When an opponent goes off-book you need to know why it is off-book. Generally there is a weakness which can be exploited. It is better to use the game explorer in conjunction with one or two books on your favourite openings to give you an idea of what the opening themes are (common attacks, weak squares, pawn structures, middle-game transitions).

5) Openings are a small section of the game. Buy a book on middlegame strategy and it will shed light on why certain opening moves are good or bad.

6) Many games are won/lost on the transition from opening to middlegame.

I'm currently going through this process myself as a learning method. I probably need to take some time out to study strategy more and smooth out the transition into the middlegame. Just playing lots of games without studying the ones you have played already will keep you at a level. You need to study the key moves in your own games and play through some GM games to really improve.

If you are just playing for fun, then please ignore any points not relevant to you, and enjoy!

 two more important tips:

1) lines get refuted, often even after dozens of years. the 'unsound' won games don't get removed, so the winning percentages are not to be trusted.

2) you ABSOLUTELY need to understand the position you're going into, regardless of how the masters have done with it statistically. otherwise you're trivially lead right into bad positions, or, you might not be able to 'swim' in the following position. an example of the latter: the continuation requires you to be able to mate Q vs R. if you can't do it, you'll lose 100% of the continuations. -what's won for a master, often isn't for an amateur. if you don't understand a line, it's always better to pick the statistically worse one which you do understand. unless it's trivially losing of course.

only play moves you understand. blind db copying will make you easy prey for a more experienced db-user. using dbs is a skill, which takes a lot of time & work to learn. it's closer to pure analysis than copying moves blindly.

Not an approach likely to win friends and influence people, although I agree with your analogy to a point. I would say it's like standing to shoot during the prone phase of a competition, then castigating all the people in the prone position as taking an unfair advantage of you or even "cheating." Imagine some people forming a group called "Only Shoot In Standing Position" and then arrogantly proclaiming themselves to be the only "purists" in the shooting world. Silly is the best way to describe it, but whether it's born of simple ignorance or something more is hard to say.

To be clear -- again -- I don't have any objection with the idea of someone forming a group that would only shoot in a standing position, any more than I would object to someone forming a group to shoot muskets or to use Welsh longbows. I would only object to any of those groups disaparaging those who decide to do something different.

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 #664.

this thread has become yet another one in which both sides misunderstand each other, and use false analogies to make the other side seem ignorant or silly.  Hasn't it already been shown that some people would prefer to make CC as close to OTB as possible, as some people don't.  It is really that simple for a majority of the players.

olimar you are the devils post 666

Those who have lived through the 600+ postings of this thread (and not everyone survived!) will have acquired a greater understanding of both sides of the discussion, alongside a greater respect for a number of the people in the other camp. New arrivals will tend to be more polarized, not having had the benefit of this 'trail of tears'.

"educational tears of friendship"... where:

1.  Users played with Users; and still are

2.  Non-Users played with Non-Users; and still are

3.  Users agreed to play OTB with Non-Users; and still are

4.  Non-Users looked into outside sources, if not actually experimented with them

Users - 71, Non-Users - 77

Are you referring to my posts? If so, please point out the false analogies or indicate what part of any post of mine shows that I don't understand something. If you're not referring to my posts, what are you referring to?

Isn't it interesting to see Duffer1965 and Olimar play OTB here in Chess.com?

Or, how about two simultaneous games - white and black for each - where we each play in our preferred style? RATED - like before.

With your +182 point rating advantage, you take a few more points off me - and demonstate in the process that use of an Opening Database (Game Explorer) + the Analysis Board is not worth 180 points.

I just think that if someone makes sweeping statements about everyone who has participated in a thread now up to nearly 700 posts, he should be concrete rather than unhelpfully vague. If there's a point to be made, it should be made so that others can benefit. But simply announcing that no one understands the otherside's arguments is hardly helpful.

To be clear: Any position that cannot be defended is not worth holding. I'm happy to adjust or abandon any position I hold if someone points out a flaw in it. But a vague statement of damnation is worse than useless.

Late arrivals have missed some of the earlier 'colour' of the debate. Here are a few of the analogical & metaphorical highlights.

Olimar, I tend to agree with you. I think some analogies were better than others but at the end of the day how one choose to play is a matter of taste.

Preferred style? Gladly.

Rated? I prefer unrated at this time as I still have a number of rated games going on. I just sent you an invite.

this may have been said...

another good use of a database is to see how the responses to a move that you come up with compare with the responses of the database games... same for responses to responses etc...

I'm disappointed that I didn't make it on the analogical superlist.  I'll try to do better in future posts you can be assured!