I'm new so this may be a dumbass question but when you say using a database in corespondence chess you're referring to looking up old games in Chessbase right? Not plugging the moves into Houdini or Komodo and asking the comp for the next move....
Yes. ChessBase, Chess.com Explorer, Chess Informant, New in Chess, old dog-eared books, SCID vs PC, opening monographs, Nunn's Chess Openings, ...
I'm new so this may be a dumbass question but when you say using a database in corespondence chess you're referring to looking up old games in Chessbase right? Not plugging the moves into Houdini or Komodo and asking the comp for the next move....
There are also free chess databases online, that you can use without downloading any program.
I'm new so this may be a dumbass question but when you say using a database in corespondence chess you're referring to looking up old games in Chessbase right? Not plugging the moves into Houdini or Komodo and asking the comp for the next move....
There are also free chess databases online, that you can use without downloading any program.
1.6 million high quality games: http://www.newinchess.com/NICBase/Default.aspx?PageID=400
3.5 million mixed quality: http://www.365chess.com/
I disagree strongly with using databases to find moves to play during turn-based games on this or any other site. They should be used exclusively to prepare for a game before playing, and to analyse the game after it is finished.
I can agree with that. I don't intend on using a DB during a game. I asked because I was concerned I might be facing off against a guy using an engine. I crucify myself enough doing that in Fritz every day practicing :) If an opponent uses a DB and it's in the rules that's cool too. I'm just trying to improve my game.... If I don't have the opening down, I shouldn't be playing it :)
" Don't invest too much pride in your Chess.com rating--"
I have to presume that's why people cheat. They value their rating over their true ability. The number is what they seek, not the knowledge.
I can't really play OTB. There is a fairly local chess club but it's too far for me to drive. At least very often. I became disabled in 2007(back surgery). So online chess is a hobby to keep my mind busy.
" Don't invest too much pride in your Chess.com rating--"
I have to presume that's why people cheat. They value their rating over their true ability. The number is what they seek, not the knowledge.
I can't really play OTB. There is a fairly local chess club but it's too far for me to drive. At least very often. I became disabled in 2007(back surgery). So online chess is a hobby to keep my mind busy.
But you can always continue playing "live chess" (bullet, blitz or standard) as you have been doing. Database use is not allowed there.
But you can always continue playing "live chess" (bullet, blitz or standard) as you have been doing. Database use is not allowed there.
'Bullet' is not chess.
'Blitz' is sort of chess, I guess--and rampant with engine-assisted cheaters.
'Standard' is even easier to cheat with engines, OR 'cheat' by using databases.
Pick your poison.
And in online chess is even easier to use engines.
I don´t know why that should a criteria to decide if continue playing live standard or "online chess".
I'm certain that engine users are less frequent than we suspect. I know that my opponent used an engine during the game until I use an engine to analyze the game afterwards. The number of egregious blunders on both sides clarifies the matter. The method that helps detect those few cases of actual engine use also confirms when suspicions are unfounded.
Database use, however, would seem to be undetectable. How does anyone know whether the game went down a line that I have played and studied since 1977?
If you look at all of my bullet and blitz games and compare them to my correspondence ("Online") games, you will notice:
1. Some junk played on speed that I would never play in correspondence (a Hammerschlag thematic changes this pattern slightly: http://www.chess.com/tournament/barnes-opening-hammerschlag-quotfried-foxquot-thematic-tournament)
2. If the junk is excluded, the correspondence games show more variety. That's a clue to my use of databases. But is is not proof. Here's the proof: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2009/01/playing-with-databases.html.
Are databases fair? I hope not. I invest a lot of time and money in acquiring chess resources and learning to use them well. Most of my opponents do not have a nearly complete collection of Chess Informants. Some of my opponents may exploit the absence of more than a handful of New in Chess Yearbooks in my library.
Knowledge and skill should tilt the playing field. The skills needed to use databases well have given my OTB play depth that might have been harder to develop otherwise.
I still think it should be illegal to use databases during rated games. To me it is still 'like cheating'. It's not our own moves we're making, it is the moves of experts .
I don't have a problem using them in unrated games, or for study purposes before or after rated games.
" Don't invest too much pride in your Chess.com rating--"
I have to presume that's why people cheat. They value their rating over their true ability. The number is what they seek, not the knowledge.
I can't really play OTB. There is a fairly local chess club but it's too far for me to drive. At least very often. I became disabled in 2007(back surgery). So online chess is a hobby to keep my mind busy.
wow, a surgery made you disabled?
Did you sue the hospital?
That's terrible.. sorry to hear that.
There will always be cheaters here, because they are banned, and then they are back again with a new account.. staff would be rebanning the same people a lot of the time.
I think playing conventional correspondence chess with opening books has a legitimate point: to test the merits of opening systems and learning opening lines gradually by playing them from the opening book. But if this is the goal ( to bring conventional chess lines to perfection ) then everything should be allowed ( as in kentaur chess ).
If the goal is to improve your vision and creativity without outside help than why not play Chess960? Some say that it is difficult to find middle gams plans with Chess960. On the contrary: what is 'difficult' is to try to play Chess960 as if was conventional chess and try to somehow use the middle game plans of conventional chess - this won't work. The fact of the matter is that indeed it is possible to make middle game plans just you have to do your own thinking.
I have switched to Chess960 and I feel much better about it. With no outside guidance the game is completely mine and the plans are my plans. I'm playing my own game which is still chess I can assure you.
I think playing conventional correspondence chess with opening books has a legitimate point: to test the merits of opening systems and learning opening lines gradually by playing them from the opening book. But if this is the goal ( to bring conventional chess lines to perfection ) then everything should be allowed ( as in kentaur chess ).
But why not test them in unrated games? Why does it have to be rated games to test them?
@chess_kebabs People don't play unrated games seriously. This is a sad experience but true. There has to be some 'stake' to the game for a player to put real effort in it.
Maybe watcha that's because it's legal to use databases in rated games. There is no need to test/train in unrated games.
@watcha You have a point concerning centaur chess. In fact, I have played it where permitted (such as the engine room on a chess server) for that very reason. Having played all sorts of chess, My preferences are grounded in experience. I prefer OTB at standard time controls and traditional (research aided without engines) correspondence on sites such as this one. As for chess_kebabs and the multitudes of others who find it akin to cheating! please read the relevant posts in my Chess Skills blog. The battle to out research one's opponent is a central pleasure of correspondence chess.
But you can always continue playing "live chess" (bullet, blitz or standard) as you have been doing. Database use is not allowed there.
'Bullet' is not chess.
'Blitz' is sort of chess, I guess--and rampant with engine-assisted cheaters.
'Standard' is even easier to cheat with engines, OR 'cheat' by using databases.
Pick your poison.
And in online chess is even easier to use engines.
I don´t know why that should a criteria to decide if continue playing live standard or "online chess".
The singular is 'criterion'
But you can always continue playing "live chess" (bullet, blitz or standard) as you have been doing. Database use is not allowed there.
'Bullet' is not chess.
'Blitz' is sort of chess, I guess--and rampant with engine-assisted cheaters.
'Standard' is even easier to cheat with engines, OR 'cheat' by using databases.
Pick your poison.
And in online chess is even easier to use engines.
I don´t know why that should a criteria to decide if continue playing live standard or "online chess".
The singular is 'criterion'
And I think that there should be a "be" after should.
As for chess_kebabs and the multitudes of others who find it akin to cheating! please read the relevant posts in my Chess Skills blog. The battle to out research one's opponent is a central pleasure of correspondence chess.
I'm a little confused Ziryab, how do you find using databases unfair then, if you support using them because it's "a central pleasure of correspondence chess"?
One could argue that cheaters love to use engines because the battle to outplay their opponent's engine choices is a central pleasure of correspondence chess for them.
I'm all for using the database research to aid in the "battle" you talk about, to enjoy and to learn from, if the games are not rated. That to me is very fair.
you cant control it