A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

It is allowed in turn-based chess, not allowed in live chess.

Do the game explorer help me to learn?  I think the answer is yes.

Do the game explorer help me to win? I don't care, this is not live chess.

Don't count me as user again, you do it before.

My apologies.

TBH, I dont even know what a chess database is, anyone feel like filling me in :P?

I dont use any aids whilst playing online chess, otherwise I sometimes feel as if I haven't won or lost the game myself.

Of course I will study my games after, see where I could have improved and all that. But not during.

However, I respect my oponents right to do so :D.

As of 10/2/08:

Users - 80, Non-Users -93

That is why JYaasn has been counted as a User. It seems that JYaasn may have meant: Never use the database DURING the game.

FROM POST #658

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.

See also post #630, #660, #661 and many others.

I don't see the point of using outside help.  I guess my rating would be better if I did ;)

As of 10/2/08:

Users - 80, Non-Users -94

It depends on what sort of game you are playing and what your intention is. If you are interested in playing correspondence chess qua correspondence chess, then the point would be to play the best possible move, every move. And you want to use all available resources to do so. If you are interested in using online chess -- at least in part -- as a way to learn new openings, then the point would be to study the opening in the context of an ongoing game rather than just in the pages of a book.

If your intention is to try to simulate OTB play, I'm not sure what the point of playing turn-based chess would. Maybe someone can clue me in on that mystery.

i can fill you in on that mystery :-)

i like to play long games online, now at the moment i cant do that onlivechess, as i have lost probably 85% of my long games on disconnect, i can't keep in touch with livechess long enough to not lose the game when i lose the connection....its mainly my wireless broadband, often i will have a minute or so every hr when my signal freezes and i lag out.

Also i always find that when i play long live games, i always end up with the phone ringing , or the doorbell going, or my wife needing help with something, or my baby needing me to fix her dolly :-) etc etc you get the point!

So for me, turnbased is the ideal way for me to play a slower game OTB , but without lagging out and losing, and also with no pressure to HAVE to keep playing if something comes up and im needed elsewhere.

I hope this explains why a lot of people on here like to use turnbased as a way of playing low pressure slow OTB games :-)

Cheers. That certainly makes sense. But I don't think you're really simulating OTB play, which is what I referred to. You seem to be trying to get the best compromise that you can given the difficult circumstances. For that reason, I referred to this as a sort of "hybrid" between OTB and CC games. It's really a third variant. That does not, however, support the idea that there is anything "unfair" about playing one of the other variants -- CC/turn-based. It just indicates that there is an interest in playing this "hybrid" variation.

I'm also curious to know whether you think it matters whether your opponent is using databases or books or anything else, and if so why.

At the risk of sounding like a pompous person trying to toot my own horn, I hereby list myself as a non-user. While I don't object to people who are users because I think that there are some teaching/learning advantages involved, I can't help but feel that, in the long run, the disadvantages of not working harder mentally during a game, due to the distraction of looking up something in a book or on a computer, and/or the possible temptation to not fully analyze one's games after the fact, leads to a player not improving his/her game to the greatest extent possible. Therefore my preference is to not use books and/or databases during a game.

On the subject of computer chess analysis programs/databases, despite their obvious positive aspects, sometimes also I wonder if we are losing more than we are gaining. If such devices can tempt us to reduce, or even to stop, the act of thinking (and if we give in to that temptation), then we have lost. If a person writes a book about some aspect of chess, and includes the comment: "I checked this position with the best analysis programs, and they all confirm that this is a win for Black," is it that author's book anymore?

In the end, I suppose that these devices/programs will just hasten the day when the game of chess will be 'solved.' Fortunately for us, that won't be for a while.

It's been posted before, but merits repetition: using a database or openings book does not mean that you aren't "working as hard" as someone who doesn't. Choosing the correct line from the various options available is not greatly different from choosing the candidate moves from scratch - you just understand better what might follow.

However, the biggest problem with this argument is the evidence of the best players in the world - they ALL use databases, analysis engines and various openings manuals to aid in their preparation for games. Now, if this does not improve their game, why do they do it? In a previous post someone quoted Newton "if I see further it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants"; very appropriate. Similarly, using another music analogy, Schoenberg was an incredibly original composer who came up with a whole new way of composing music (he completely moved away from using keys and concentrated on combinations of sounds instead), but even his work was a natural progression from what came before (Wagner and other late Romantic composers).

NOBODY creates any sort of work in a vacuum (except for nuclear physicists who need to create their work in a vacuum or else it doesn't work). Everyone learns from what they have seen. Several of the people in the CoT are in it because they want to practise their OTB skills, and several of them have very decent OTB ratings. The chances are that they have learned some openings from books previously, even though they don't use them during games in order to replicate OTB playing conditions - it is mostly these individuals who post the most reasonable, well argued posts. Even if you are the sort of person who says "I do it all myself. I want to learn the old fashioned way. I don't want to use external help because it would feel like it wasn't my own work" - even this sort of person takes ideas from others because they use a trial and error system of learning. It is just less efficient.

It's very much like teaching yourself how to play guitar - you'll manage it if you are dedicated enough, but it will take longer than if you go to a good teacher.

My point is - the body of work which has been put together in DBs and books is there to help you learn. Ignoring it means you learn slower. Deliberately not using it during games is a playing style choice everyone is entitled to. Telling others they are not progressing because they use such resources is foolish and ill advised.

As of 10/3/08:

Users - 81, Non-Users -94

As of 10/3/08:

Users - 81, Non-Users -95

I use books for openings, then my mind for the rest.

The poll on the front page shows interesting data.

The notion somehow that using databases will cause the player to not think is flawed.

If the player doesn't think, then the player doesn't think. Using databases will just prolong their blunders.

Speaking for myself, using a DB often just confirms to me which move I'm already considering. Where it REALLY helps is in the types of positions in which I often get a bad game from playing exactly the moves that I "typically" would consider. That is exactly where it adds value and where it makes me a better player.