A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

I sometimes use game explorer for lines I want to learn, but never for more than 5 or 6 moves. About 50-60% of games I play without reference to any books or game explorer. This is not because I disagree with using books and databases - it's in the rules that you can use an openings database, so that's as much part of the game of correspondence chess as en passant or castling - it's because I'm here to learn and improve my chess and don't think I can do that by using databases all the time. I learn my favourite opening lines from books and try to use them in the same way as I would for OTB.

Anyway, if someone just blindly uses a database things will go off-line pretty quickly and if they didn't know what they were doing then they will lose in the middlegame.

I think using an engine is totally pointless - why bother playing if you aren't actually playing? I don't care too much if someone is using them against me, because their rating will reflect the engine's rating and I will probably improve by doing my best against the engine, win or lose. I don't own a chess engine and never intend to, because they bore me. I like playing humans, not silicon.

This isn't even close to an accurate polling. You can't just ask people to post what they use and expect it to be even close to an accurate sampling of all chess.com users.  Polls like this should be banned, because people believe it to be the truth, and it doesn't hold an ounce of scientific merit of an actual survey.

Now on to my post.

For some reason here it's considered "bad" or "looked down upon" to follow the rules and use books.  It doesn't help when the "holier than thou" attitude of the circle of "trust" looks down at everybody following the rules.  They say they don't, but you can see it in their comments.

That is by far the worst group at chess.com, not by the idea behind it, but by their actions.

To tell you the truth, I really don't like most of these people saying they wont use databases because they all sound like pompous people trying to toot their own horn.

This topic is described as a tally, that is to say, a simple count. No claims have been lodged for scientific or statistical validity. Some have posted "+1" or "User" - others have elaborated the reasons behind their choices, including in some cases, that they were unaware of the facilities.

In the final analysis, I have every confidence that the rationality, tolerance and clarity of the contributions will carry more weight than the bare numbers - whatever they turn out to be.

i play online because i want to play against another 'person'.

Non-User

i do my study after games, not during them.

[threadjack]

I'm curious - we all take it for granted that the rules of engagement that were established for "coorespondence" chess - ie, the rules that were developed when coorespondence chess was playing through snail mail between real chess enthusiasts - ought to immediately apply to 1 move per 3 day internet games.

I'm not saying that they don't or shouldn't - I assume this happened quite casually and naturally. This might be an interesting opportunity for one of the history buffs on the site to explain some of the story of coorespondence chess: when were the first rules established in regard to mailing chess? How long did some of these games last? When was the first league established? Who decided that internet "turn-based" (a bad term for it I think) chess ought to be under the same purview as old mail coorespondence rules?

Remember that these rules (books and databases) were likely established before the first computer was ever built, with no idea as to the way computers would intertwine with chess.

I mean, honestly, the people that made these rules never concieved that someone might sit down and use fritz analysis on their lines and so forth.

I really am interested in the reasoning - all good philosophers challenge assumptions that "go without saying"...

[/threadjack]

This is my first year playing chess (seriously), so I have a lot to learn.  I have been reading 101chesstips.com and discussing games with my friend (who is also new to chess).  So I guess you would say I'm a user. 

That doesn't count as a user, starwraith. I have lots of Silman books, Chess Encyclopedias, and I love watching voice-annotated chess videos/ talk to friends about chess. None of that counts as using.

Haha, maybe the terminology we're "using" is slanted as perjorative against "users", insofar as the proximity to drug slang.

/off to do a google-image search for "users"...

Mebeme wrote:

Mebeme wrote:

ericmittens, ever thought some people dont live within 40 miles of a chess club? less tournaments here too.

you never answered my question.

Create a chess club, or drive/take the train/fly to tournaments farther away. I'm sorry that you don't have a thriving chess community, in my opinion OTB chess is the only form of chess that can really be taken seriously.

Rael wrote:

I mean, honestly, the people that made these rules never concieved that someone might sit down and use fritz analysis on their lines and so forth.

The use of Fritz or any other chess engine is still PROHIBITED under the current rules!!!  There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between using databases (which are essentially online versions of books) and chess engines (in which you ask a computer to "think" for you).  They are NOT THE SAME THING!!!!  Just because you use databases DOES NOT mean that you use an engine, and just because you use databases DOES NOT mean you're not thinking for yourself.  It just means you're taking the time to do your homework first.

Can you imagine an English teacher telling a class that they are not allowed to use a dictionary for their take-home essay assignment until after it has been completed and graded?  If they are taking an in-class spelling test then it would make sense, but not in all situations.  If the use of a dictionary is allowed, should the student who misspells the same words over and over again feel better about themselves because they are making the mistakes on their own and not relying on Noah Webster to "think" for them?  Should the student who took the time to correct his mistakes BEFORE turning his assignment in feel less good about himself because he bothered to proof read his homework first when other students did not?

There is a time and place for databases and books on openings.  OTB games and Live Chess here are NOT the right places, but Correspondance Chess (I don't care for the term "turn-based" either) IS the right time and place for it.  The only time and place for chess engines is post-game analysis.

I'm sure that you'd be correct, Gonnosuke, in fact - I bet there is likely a rating plateau that is very difficult to cross without being a user. I wonder if it would be something like...

With regular study, work, and play...

70% of people can get >1200
60% of people can get >1375
35% of people can get >1500
20% of people can get >1700

Taking full advantage of the tools allowed...

90% of people can get >1200
70% of people can get >1375

... and so on. Feel free to modify my numbers, I'm making this up, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. No one is denying that the people who use all means at their disposal don't get better results as far as rating is concerned.

Billium248 wrote:

PROHIBITED, BIG DIFFERENCE, NOT THE SAME THING!!!! 

 Hey hey, first off, I didn't know that I'd strike a nerve with that. I hope to not come off as heated.

But... I've heard often of testing fritz lines, not inside a particular game per say, but as part of opening study (care to field this one for me, ih8sens? tell us about the study you did on the Traxler).

"Can you imagine an English teacher telling a class that they are not allowed to use a dictionary for their take-home essay assignment until after it has been completed and graded?  If they are taking an in-class spelling test then it would make sense, but not in all situations.  If the use of a dictionary is allowed, should the student who misspells the same words over and over again feel better about themselves because they are making the mistakes on their own and not relying on Noah Webster to "think" for them?  Should the student who took the time to correct his mistakes BEFORE turning his assignment in feel less good about himself because he bothered to proof read his homework first when other students did not?"

Using this analogy, let's liken it to a student who actually learns spelling and one who is always reliant on his spellcheck to clean his game up for him.

"There is a time and place for databases and books on openings.  OTB games and Live Chess here are NOT the right places, but Correspondance Chess (I don't care for the term "turn-based" either) IS the right time and place for it.  The only time and place for chess engines is post-game analysis."

Chess engines can easily be used in study. Why not play your favorite opening against fritz and study it's responses, learn an opening in depth, then set the engine aside and play a fresh game? This is, of course, legal, and still uses engines. I'm also curious about how internet chess became conflated with coorespondence chess.

If coorespondence = old snail mail = take home exam, and

OTB chess = blitz chess = in-class test, then

maybe internet 3 days per move = open book test, haha (still in your desk, but allowed a cheat sheet).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this instance it would be wrong of the kids who didn't take the time to make their cheat sheet to complain about the kids that did, to be sure. I didn't mean to come off as equating databases with engines, sorry, I know they're different. I think this is an issue we can explore is all.

NON-USER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why not use a french computer translator, pretend you can speak french:p

Rael,  No worries. 

I just hear a lot of people who seem to think they're the same thing.  Just like we've been trying to educate them on the differences between CC and OTB rules, I was merely trying to clarify the difference between engines and databases.

Your analogy of an in-class-open-book-exam is PERFECT!!  Just as the person who depends on their spell-checker is a perfect analogy for the people who use the databases just as improperly.

Légèrement au loin-matière. Si je visitais la France et ne pourrais pas parler français, alors j'aurais les choix de : ne parlant pas, de PARLER TRÈS LENTEMENT ET L'ANGLAIS FORT - ou pas à l'aide du livre d'expressions ou du traducteur électronique. Quel choix est sensible ?

When I was in the Dominican Republic trying to speak Spanish, my little pocket electronic translator was an invaluable tool when I didn't know a word.  But again, without the basic ability to speak Spanish in the first place, the tool would have served little good.  Without the understanding of why a move is a good move, the databases will function likewise.

Hey what happened to Rael's post that was here a second ago?  I loved your use of j' and l'

Non-User.

I don't care what my opponents use.  I'm here to play chess for fun. People who can use databases effectively will have higher ratings than me and those I play against, so it's no skin off my teeth if whatever they use.  I will still have competitive games against people with similar ratings as me, whether or not they're using a database.

After all, I don't really know who I'm playing.  I'm playing someone, but I don't know how good they really are - I only have a rating to go by, or a title.  So what's the difference between playing someone who committed to memory all those databases and someone who is looking at them as they play?  No difference at all, to me.  To them, well, they either have a really good memory or they don't.  Either way, they'll continue to play to the ranking given them on Chess.com.  Chess.com wins and losses don't really matter for the most part anyway.

If there was some prize involved for being the 'best' and I was interested in it, I would go with whatever was available to me to win it.  But since there isn't, and I don't, I don't see any reason to let a database play for me (because that's what would happen - I avoid thought at all cost when I can).  So I will play for myself, and improve that way, while you can use your databases or books and improve that way.  Do whatever you want, as long as it's within the rules, and I'll play how I want to play to give me the maximum value of my money for my membership at chess.com.

johnjacobson wrote:

To tell you the truth, I really don't like most of these people saying they wont use databases because they all sound like pompous people trying to toot their own horn.

it seems to me that you generalize everyone who disagrees with you by "villifying" them as pompous.  This is not the way to convince people you are right.  Disagree with agruments instead of disliking people who support them :)

Heh, it's not an argument. Are you saying that people who take advantage of legal means won't have a higher rating? I don't mean an illegitimate or inflated rating.

I'm not drawing a false analogy. Re-read what I wrote. Choose particular sentences you disagree with, if you like. But you've misunderstood my intent here.

tycho you either missed his point, or refused to acknowledge it... he is arguing that compared to people who DONT use it, their ratings are inflated, which is true.  obviously rael knows that if everyone body used it, it wouldn't inflate ratings.