Correspondence chess help needed

My book is making the moves for me, right on the pages. In fact, it does more than just make my moves, it also explains why such and such move is needed.

Isn't that more than my marble machine can provide (it comes without speakers) ?

Surely if both give me the moves, then should not both be outlawed?

barefoot_player

You can consult the endgame book.  If it just happens to have the exact same line that your game ends up following to the letter, it's just lucky for you (or maybe not ;)...).

If you use a "marble machine" to set up your exact position and crank through it to produce exactly what moves to play to win, that is cheating.  If you use a tablebase that contains every possible endgame result for 6 pieces or less, that is cheating.  If there were a 1,000,000 page PDF that contained the same information as the full tablebase, using that would also be cheating, but luckily we are not quite there yet ;)...

The difference is specificity to your position, and motivation.

The reason you won't see that is because chess.com and most chess TDs or other arbiters would not consider an opening database with engine scores on every single move to be an opening database at all...it's just a list of exhaustive engines lines at that point.  Still, some people do try to sneak such databases into the definition of an opening database, so that's why people address them.

20-30 years from now, opening databases will have pretty much every line out to 40+ moves ;), and that will be a big problem for correspendence chess, but for now things are okay.

As Scottrf pointed out, the FAQs and rules write-ups on chess.com are pretty sketchy, but these issues have been hashed out over time with staff.  For another example, the FAQs will tell you that in votechess, tie votes are broken by which move got the first vote, but that was changed long ago, and the FAQs were never updated.

It sure would :).  I can't tell you how many times it's been brought up that they changed the tiebreaker policy on votechess without fixing the FAQ.  

It's not a priority :/.

A 1,000,000 page PDF file K+P ending is not necessary, unless your have VERY LARGE FONTS. 

There are only a small number of unique K + P positions.

A K + P ending can be copied from the "b" file to the "d", "e", and "g" and files.

The "a" file and "h" files are mirror images from each other, as are the "c" and "f" files.

The programming necessary is deceptively simple, it could probably be done with BASIC IF, THEN statements.

If I produce these endings, on paper, and consult it during a endgame, is that then cheating?

If my opponent did make a different move in the ending, I would know that it would be an error. That is a significant piece of information.

My endgame book, like so many books now, also gives side lines that my marble machine might not be able to do.

You are answering your own question.  if the K+P material is teaching you how to handle K+P positions by file and rank, it is generically teaching you a technique to use on all K+P endgames.  You have to then apply it to your game.

Who is more boring, the person that yawns but has nothing better to do his life than post yawns, or the people holding a (possibly) boring conversation?

It's an interesting question.

<OwlTuna> can you refer me to an instance where a relevant staff member actually writes that anywhere?

That a database with incorporated engine evals is prohibited?

That would really be too bad... I play corr. chess in order to study some openings, and I find that such a database is an excellent learning tools for lines. The comp. eval gives you some hint, or some direction, as to which lines to pursue further, which lines are bad, and why - let's say, it's a more 'clever' opening database. 

If such instruction against these databases exists, I will feel as though I'm "hunting in the dark" for openings - and nowadays, there is really no reason to be "in the dark" in the opening stage, as so much is known, and 'computer lines' are so widely in use. Why not benefit from it? It isn't specific to my game...

<Btickler> in Post #101 - the engine evals incorporated into the database I know, do not contain "exhaustive" lines - even if they are based on them. 

Any line cannot be really 'Exhaustive" as the number of possible variations from any opening position, even 10-ply deep, will be in billions of billions. Even "plausible" or "half-plausible" variations will be way beyond the ability to "exhaust" completely...

The database only gives a move, a position, and a computer eval. You either understand it or you don't, and you either agree with it or you don't - and maybe you want to test it, to try it - or you don't. 

Two sides of a different coin ;).

We have different definitions of exhaustive, then ;)...as it pertains to chess openings, at least.  Within the first 10 moves, there are a very finite number of variations actually played with any frequency by humans, and those (or computer improvements on those) are all that would need to be covered.  So the whole "there are more possible moves in a chess game than atoms in the universe" argument is not that germane in this instance.  The practical number of openings and variations that are common today is very small in database terms.

If you want to use such a database, I doubt you would get caught...unless you pay attention to the computer evals and play only the moves that are top 3.  In which case, you are using the database in a manner that is not really an opening database and just using it as an engine with all the moves pre-calculated out for you ;).

I think that it does make a difference, whether the moves are pre-calculated, which should be ok, or calculated for you as you go because you use an engine, which isn't ok. 

Opening books such as BCO and the opening encyclopedia, give human evaluations to lines (+=, +=/+ over -, +/-, etc.) - which isn't that different, after all than computer evals (0.60, 0.39, 0.15, etc.)\

In any case, I would appreciate a clear guideline on the subject - as opposed to a member's opinion, learned and wisely-founded as it may be. 

<JG27Pyth>

An interesting take. I would probably pick the "traditional" - as playing with constant engine help really is way above my head... I wouldn't figure out how to get the advantage over someone else who also uses an engine. I know that stronger players can actually do that...

Just for the sake of practicality - can you refer me to the link where opening DBs with engine evals were actually prohibited?

Thanks!

@98 and what's worse, they promised to clear it up 16 months ago.

<OwlTuna>

Thanks for letting me know. 

Corr. chess is interesting for me first and foremost as an incentive to research the opening phase... 

Now that you're updating me, and to be sure that I'm not stepping into any 'grey area' I will tell my future opponents before starting any game, that I intend to study the opening with a database which includes engine evaluation. If they're ok with that - we'll play the game. Otherwise, we'll abort before completion of move 1. 

Dynamic vs Static makes sense -- but the part in red I highlighted above contradicts that formulation. It is banning static information.  (videos are static: the output doesn't change based on your input) The thing is, I think Netzach is right -- at some point chess.com _did_ say something like that red part (not quite as extreme, I think...). It was a while ago but I've never heard it retracted. Does anyone know if that ruling is still in force (and was it ever enforced... and is it enforceable?)  

Netzach's bit about videos "based on" engine evaluations strikes me as preposterous... like saying you can't use opening books based on engine evaluations (effectively banning all opening books written since roughly 2000.) I can't believe chess.com is trying to enforce that. 

Probably, then, databases with evals are fine - however, until I hear that it's 100% cool, I'll still keep 'warning' my opponents before starting to play... no nasty surprises here.