Permissible resoruces in Daily Chess games?

I agree with Scarblac's post - you only get so far with a database. Remember that the Games Explorer games were games played by high-rated players, so if you play a lower rated opponent then it is likely they will veer off the database very quickly after which you need to know what the strategy behind the opening was or you will squander any advantage within 1 or 2 moves.

It certainly helps avoid opening traps in well known openings, but I was playing against Bird's opening recently (the From gambit) and deliberately steered my opponent towards the (only) DB move on move 7 because I knew it to be a blunder. Unfortunately he didn't follow blindly and played the best option instead, moving off DB. If he had just blindly followed the DB for move 7 I would have veered off on the next move into a better position.

It's a great tool, and its use should be encouraged, but it needs to be used with care, remembering that any theoretical advantage needs to be converted after you move off-book.

One point I forgot - half the time, a better percentage just means that the move is something that higher-rated players often choose against lower-rated players.

OTB I usually know a bit more about the opening than my opponents, but I'm typically the sort of player that spends far too much time studying openings and not enough tactics, strategy and endgames.

But it's fun :-)

Check out streetfighter's book for ways of upsetting 'book' players!

Scarblac makes valid observations. I use a db with nearly 3 million games and against opponents rated over 2000 the average number of games before we leave the db is 10-12 moves. Against players under 2000 it’s even fewer moves. Once you leave the db you have to play your own moves and if you don’t understand the position no db in the world is going to help you. My experience is that whether one or both players are using books or db’s (or even sometimes engines!) the strongest player usually wins.

The various posts here have really got me thinking. I would like to propose an experiment. Would anybody like to play against me (obviously in an unrated game) where I use nothing but the database and they use nothing but their wits (or the other way around - someone else use the database and I use my wits)?

This is a tricky one to judge. I average about 1450-1500 on chess.com. What would be the optimum rating to carry out the experiment? It would be interesting to post the game here and discuss it. Any takers? (Please note - I am not trying to prove a point here, but discover more about database usage. Whether someone is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. I think it would be a fascinating insight, especially if the game is posted).

EDIT - perhaps I should have called this post "How do you use the database?".

NEVER forget that the GE games database includes many tournament games played by children, even some less than 10 years old.

Well that was a surprise! I had assumed I could follow a game to it's conclusion on the database, but not so:

This is a game I have just played "against" the chess.com database. To my surprise, I got only got to move 12, and the game became unique! The database becomes useless! To me, this shows two things: a) using the database is not cheating and b) chess is more infinately vast than I could have ever possibly imagined.

Wow, what joy! I can use the database without feeling guilt! Thank you to all for your comments; you have all genuinely helped me and changed my mind. Can you believe that nobody, in the history of recorded chess at the top levels, has ever played 12.Nce2 in this position? Is it a blunder? Who knows! But one thing is for sure - Black can't use the opening explorer to find out!

ED.

Here’s how I use a db: Print out a few games by highly rated players then play through them to see how they handled the position. I’m trying to get a feel for the position and get an idea of what the various plans are. If my opponent has varied from the db hopefully I will be prepared to evaluate it in the light of how masters and GM’s have handled the position. If it’s just a random move with no real connection to the position’s requirements then I’ll have a better idea of what’s wrong with it and be able to respond accordingly.

For example a strong player might be trying to improve or he might be out of his book but his move could still be a plausible way of achieving the objective in the given position. If that’s the case there may be nothing wrong with his move…it’s just a different approach. On the other hand if a weaker opponent has played a move that does not address the requirements of the position I’ll be in a better position to determine what’s wrong with his move and take advantage of it.

In the above game 11.Qg2 is somewhat unusual. Other moves being 11.Qf2, 11.h4, 11.Nb2 and also 11.Bd3, 11.Ncxb5 and 11.g5.

Rosen (2338) - Neese (2218) European Senior Championship, 2002 continued:

11…Rc8 12.g5 Nfd7 13.g6 hxg6 14.Nxe6 Qe7 15.Nxf8 Kxf8 16.Qg3 Rc6 17.Bh3 Ne5 18.Bg5 Qc7 19.f4 Nec4 20.e5 Nxb2 21.Kxb2 Rxc3 22.exd6 Rxc2+ 23.Kb1 Qc4 24.Qb3 Rxh3 25.Qxc4 Rxc4 26.d7 Nxd7 27.Rxd7 Be4+ 28.Ka1 f6 29.Rhd1 fxg5 0–1

Tiviakov (2635) - Ehlvest (2620) Podolsk 1993 which is a better example ran:

11… N8d7 12.Qg2 Rc8 13.g6 hxg6 14.Nxe6 Qe7 15.Nf4 Rxc3 16.bxc3 Na4 17.Bd4 d5 18.Nxd5 Qa3+ 19.Kd2 Bd6 20.Bxg7 Rh5 21.Qg4 Ne5 22.Bxe5 Rxe5 23.Ke1 Bxd5 24.Qc8+ Ke7 25.Rxd5 Rxd5 26.Qb7+ Kf8 27.Qxd5 Nxc3 28.Qd2 Nxe4 29.Qh6+ Kg8 30.Bd3 Qb4+ 31.Kf1 Bf4 32.Qh4 Ng5 33.Kg2 Qd6 34.Re1 Ne6 35.Kh1 Bd2 36.Re2 Bc3 37.Qg3 Nf4 38.Re4 Be5 39.Qg5 Nxd3 40.cxd3 Qxd3 41.Rxe5 Qf1+ 42.Qg1 Qxf3+ ½–½

So the real question to me is: "Is 11…g5 a good move?" Then you have to ask, "Which retreat is better 12.Nb1 or 12.Ne2 and why?" This puts us back to my original statement that even with a db you will at some point have to play your own moves and in order to play good ones you have to understand the position. Offhand I don’t know the answer to the questions posed here but they are typical of the situations and kinds of questions you run into all the time.

It's okay, according to the staff.  I guess the principle is simple: as long as it's you who do the "researching" it's fine with correspondence chess.  A computer is not allowed because that's not you; you might consider that as another "individual", bearing the name of the chess engine.  But too much "researching" removes the fun in chess.

There's also gray area stuff. There are openings in which I've let Rybka analyze  positions, and I put a few of the lines into my database. If I then use that in a new game, I'm using my database, but the contents are from Rybka. Of course, I don't do that on positions that I currently have or may soon get in actual ongoing games, and I could use the same results in OTB games (as long as I remember them). They're just my opening notes.

As far as I understand, I'm not breaking any rules with this. Otherwise I'd have to keep track of which lines in my general purpose opening database come from books, which come from my own analysis and which come from Rybka... Besides, the book authors use Rybka too :-)

That's a good idea Scarblac. Do you go through the database and find certain move combinations missing? Do you then use Rybka to fill in the gaps?

 I don't see how that is any different than using a book...most of the stuff there comes from an engine as well...

After reading this I immediately thought of the passage in The Immortal Game by David Shenk regarding the number of possible board positions after a certain amount of moves. I found it quite interesting so I figured I'd throw them out there for those who haven't heard this before. So on the first move white has 20 possible moves (8 pawns can move either one or 2 squares and the knights can each move to 2 different squares) and black has 20 possible answers creating 400 possible board positions after just the first move from each side. On the second move each side has 27 possible moves making the math not so simple anymore and in the words of David Shenk "you'll have to trust the number crunchers on this." After 2 moves each the number of possible board positions is 71,852. 3 moves 9 million. 4 moves 315 billion. The estimated number of unique chess games is 10 to the 120th power. Thats a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it into perspective the estimated number of electrons in the universe is 10 to the 79th power. Now if that doesn't blow your mind I don't know what will.

Similar forum topics: www.chess.com/forum/view/general/estimated--of-unique-chess-games and www.chess.com/forum/view/general/infinite-possibilities-in-a-game-of-chess.

It's pretty simple my friend: What do you want to get out of chess.com?

Do you want to win?

Do you want to learn?

Do you want high internet rating, that is meaningless anyways?

Do you want to enrich your chess playing experience by the number one teaching tool (learn from own mistakes)?

What is more important?

oh cool so u can use open explorer and its not cheating.

Logistically, when is one "between games"?  I never am.  At no point do I ever find myself having completed all my games, and not having started any new ones.  The corresponance nature of chess on this site almost guarantees that players will always be in the middle of at least one game.  So are we never allowed to read chess books?

you got a point there!

Cheating is to play against the rule for winning. If you follow the rule... it's no cheat, that's so clear.

Now, chess.com allows you to use books and you do so... no cheating for sure.

If later the rule changes and you still using books...that's a cheat.