A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

GreenLaser wrote:

MM78, Tal was young and ill when he lost his rematch and title to Botvinnik in 1961.

 indeed he was, smoking and drinking and ill health were the bane of his career I suppose.  I was just making the point that he might be an exception to the rule (proposed by me perhaps!) that young guys are usually better at blitz.  His tactical abilities and risk taking were ideal for blitz, Larsen imo was also a strrong blitz player and a risk taker....would he have risen to even greater heights (than world top 5 or whatever) had he been more "sensible"?  Have you or others an opinion?

Chef,oui chef!

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I am not disputing MainStreet's tally - I am disputing my own! I begin to appreciate the complexity of the task he has undertaken. Thanks again, MainStreet.

Several people didn't make their views explicit - so there is some guesswork involved. Corrections not merely welcome ... DEMANDED!

Also, COT Guidelines are NOT entirely clear. The Analysis Board DOES count as outside help (which not everyone realised). What about: rewinding the board to look at past moves? Who knows?

Users: 45   Non:Users 39

Art, yo! That's a great table you made there, really. Thank you so much.

As in any other survey where a number of posts pose a certain difficulty in their interpretations, I would suggest that we take Art's table as the "official" tally - until some corrections are submitted by the players themselves indicating otherwise.

So, now it stands at: Users - 45, Non-Users - 39

Note:  this is just a tally, thus no judgments can be inferred on these numbers. We simply lay down our cards, and agree to disagree on viewpoints shared.

 MainStreet has beaten me in our game. I guess that means I have to acknowledge the error of my ways to convert from the Dark Side.

Woah! :))

I don't use databases anymore. When I first started using this site I did and it helped me get into good positions. Now I don't use them because I've learned the openings that I play more or less. If someone plays an unfamiliar opening on me then I just use concepts from other games I've studied to play.

Non-user

Artfizz, yo! That's a great table (Post #189) you made there, really. Thank you so much.

As in any other survey where a number of posts pose a certain difficulty in their interpretations, I would suggest that we take Art's table as the "official" tally - until some corrections are submitted by the players themselves indicating otherwise.

So, now it stands at: Users - 45, Non-Users - 40

Note:  this is just a tally, thus no judgments can be inferred on these numbers. We simply lay down our cards, and agree to disagree on viewpoints shared.

I have already posted my position as non-user. But after reading the well-written comments of Gonnosuke and PerfectGent, I may reconsider my position. Remember this is CORRESPONDENCE CHESS and it has different set of rules. In my opinion, the purists (synonymous to COT?) should stick to OTB play.

Every survey should have good purpose than just 'nice to know' to make it truly worthwhile. In this regard, I would like to know the real objective of whoever started this discussion.  Do you think a USER would start such a topic?

OdessaChess, hi.

The objectives of the topic are (1) to know whether or not a player is a User or a Non-User, and (2) to understand the reasons behind the choice.

Whatever influence on the thinking of the reader these posts may have is his or her sole responsibility. In your case, you mentioned you may reconsider shifting to the other side. That, of course, is your prerogative.  If ever you do change your stand, kindly post your decision so the tally can be updated.

Here's a great idea by artfizz:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/its-another-rollover?lc=1#last_comment

Well in that case, consider me a future USER (while playing) and here's my reason:

In life, one can learn either from her own experience or from the experience of others. Smart people would like to learn from others as much as possible while many of those who lag behind (in life, and maybe in chess as well) often goes through the (harrowing) experience themselves before learning. 

Using an opening database allows me to learn from the experience of the masters. This hastens my progress as a chess player not only in the opening phase but the middle game and endgame as well. (The opening has great influence on middle game and endgame positions especially in the areas of king safety, mobility of pieces and pawn structure).

The important thing in using an opening database is to understand the logic behind each move, not just to play it mechanically. One has to ask herself: how will this move affect the safety of my King? how will this move influence the center? how will this move help in the development of my pieces? how will this move fit in the general idea of this particular opening line?, etc., etc. After considering these, one can now choose a particular move (among other candidate moves) that best suits her.

It is true that one can learn the opening in a separate study (not during actual game) but studies bore me (except when analyzing the games of the masters)and I don't have the luxury of time . Furthermore, there's nothing more exciting than to encounter the moves in an actual game and apply the principles to choose your next move. 

So if you want to progress faster, take my advice - learn from the masters, do not re-invent the wheel but know why the wheels move that way or this way. The great GM Victor Kortchnoi once said, 'In chess there's nothing new under the sun.'

Artfizz, yo! That's a great table (Post #189) you made there, really. Thank you so much.

As in any other survey where a number of posts pose a certain difficulty in their interpretations, I would suggest that we take Art's table as the "official" tally - until some corrections are submitted by the players themselves indicating otherwise.

So, now it stands at: Users - 46, Non-Users -39

Note:  this is just a tally, thus no judgments can be inferred on these numbers. We simply lay down our cards, and agree to disagree on viewpoints shared.

i used to be a non-user

polling in the forum will probably skew to the users.  many don't check out the whole site (including game explorer)

It's just my opinion, but if you have to use those during a match, you're putting yourself at a big disadvantage. Mainly because you're not really learning anything, instead you're just following what's written in a book. Some people might say that if you do it enough, you'll get it, but honestly, thinking it out yourself and actually finding justification for all your moves on your own is better. Besides, what would you do if you came across a problem the books or databases can't solve?

Edit: I'm a non-user.

I couldn't agree more with Gonnusuke and in some of the books I have read there are times in chess where the best moves go against all the axioms of chess (such as a knight on the edge or doubled pawns or isolated pawns).  These are moves that have been determined to be best because so many master games show them to be good.  Not necesarily good for any of the usual chess explanations.  One excellent example is the concept of surrender of the center.  I don't really understand this concept but according to John Watkins (I think that's his name) surrender of the center fell out of popularity after the advent of the internet once databases showed that it lost more games than it won... I'm probably oversimplifying but you get my meaning.

Now the biggest arguement is that you should study independent of play.  That's a fair arguement but we're all here to learn and have fun.  Why must play and study be seperate in all arenas?  It's within the rules so that we can all use it as a learning experience.  If the player I'm playing against isn't playing his best using databases he's doing me a horrible disservice by underplaying his ability and allowing me to believe I'm actually better than I am.  Just my opinion...  I totally understand the other side of it.  I felt the same way until I tried it...  I think this is definately a "don't knock it 'till you try it" scenario.

Anthony

Gonnosuke wrote:

amateurograpy wrote:

...you're just following what's written in a book. Some people might say that if you do it enough, you'll get it, but honestly, thinking it out yourself and actually finding justification for all your moves on your own is better.

You are making a straw man argument by assuming that the player who uses reference material is just a mimic.  You're not taking into consideration the possibility that the player would take the time to study the position further once he finds the move in a book/database.  

You're entitled to play the way you like but using reference materials is the most efficient way to learn if done properly.  As I stated earlier, you can fumble around in the dark trying to learn the thematic and strategic elements of the Najdorf through trial and error or you can acknowledge that in some cases you shouldn't try and reinvent the wheel.  Instead, you should dedicate yourself to making a better wheel by utilizing the collective knowledge assembled by thousands of chess players who have come before you.  Hard work and dedication will eventually lead to deeper understanding and if you have the skill, who knows, you just might be able to add something of value back into the pool of chess knowledge.

the problem with this is that your not trying to make a better wheel :( your just mimcing  a design proven to be effective.  From here, the rest of your argument is somewhat flimsy.  Your best point is the efficiency of learning, which is the best way to argue for database usage, it is one argument that cannot be denied.

Artfizz, yo! That's a great table (Post #189) you made there, really. Thank you so much.

As in any other survey where a number of posts pose a certain difficulty in their interpretations, I would suggest that we take Art's table as the "official" tally - until some corrections are submitted by the players themselves indicating otherwise.

So, now it stands at: Users - 47, Non-Users -41

Note:  this is just a tally, thus no judgments can be inferred on these numbers. We simply lay down our cards, and agree to disagree on viewpoints shared.

amateurograpy wrote:

It's just my opinion, but if you have to use those during a match, you're putting yourself at a big disadvantage. Mainly because you're not really learning anything, instead you're just following what's written in a book. Some people might say that if you do it enough, you'll get it, but honestly, thinking it out yourself and actually finding justification for all your moves on your own is better. Besides, what would you do if you came across a problem the books or databases can't solve?

Edit: I'm a non-user.

I think whether or not book and database use during a game of turn based/correspondence chess puts a player at a disadvantage or not depends on the reason for playing the game. If the game is being played purely as correspondence chess as an end in itself then no disadvantage will accrue. However, if the game is being played as practice for OTB-style chess then the books and databases need to be put aside for the duration of the game.

To a correspondence chess player (this is true of me at least) the books and databases are just a bigger and better memory. In "normal" OTB chess you have to rely on your own memory to get you through the game. Correspondence players have always made use of other aids to their memory such as written notes, card files and books, supplemented in the computer age with databases. When the memory runs out (often about move 6-8 I find) a player relies on his own playing abilities to find a move no matter whether he has being playing memorised lines or lines from a book or database. The database or book will not win the game in those 6-8 moves provided the opponent does not blunder horribly.

What do you do if you come across a problem the database or book cannot solve? You do what chess players have been doing for hundreds of years, you think.