Database Use is Unfair

This is a natural view if you have no real understanding of how players use databases. However, if you understand the time and effort, and the thought that goes into using databases to steer the opening into a middlegame that you can play well, then you would find yourself unable to utter such nonsense.

Try to understand the process before you criticize it with naive and inaccurate descriptions.

Playing with Databases

 

In correspondence chess, players use books and databases to aid them in the opening, and sometimes in the ending as well. Tablebases, on the other hand, are generally forbidden when engines are not allowed. It's a rare game that reaches a position that can be entered successfully in theShredder Endgame Database. Moreover, the consensus of most turn-based site arbiters appears to be that doing so is tantamount to engine use.

Computers have "solved chess" when six or fewer pieces remain, and they are hard at work on the seven piece, which might be completed in the next few years. Eight and nine piece solutions are years away, and solving the game from the opening move remains a theoretical pipe dream. Three and four piece tablebases have been included with Fritz software for quite some time, and I believe the five piece are part of the package now. My old notebook computer that I bought in 2001 lacks the five piece because its 20 GB hard drive cannot provide the slightly more than 7 GB of free space that is required. In contrast, 30 MB are sufficient storage space for all three and four piece endings.

Each piece dramatically increases the space needed. The six piece tablebases exceed the capacity of most home computers, as they require an estimated 1.2 terabytes of storage space (see David Kirkby's discussionat ChessDB). When computers finally manage to work out the seven piece endings, how much space will be needed to store the data?

Now, consider the beginning of the game when there are thirty-two pieces on the board. After one move--White and Black--there are four hundred possible positions that can be reached. White can lose by checkmate on the second move eight ways, and can deliver checkmate on the third via347 unique sequences. By the end of the fourth move (eight plies), there are 84,998,978,956 possible move sequences. Let's round the number to eighty-five billion.


Billions. Millions, and the Right Move

Of these eighty-five billion possible moves, the vast majority must be rejected immediately. The beginning player might need to look at quite a few--that's why chess seems so difficult to those first learning the game. This process is much quicker once the principles of center control and mobilization become second nature. Even so, the largest databases of previously played games top out under five million: Mega Database 2009exceeds four million. How can a practical player reduce this mass of data to something useful?

There are many strategies for using databases to aid one's play. I do not always use the same methods, nor do I care to reveal all my secrets to potential opponents. Nevertheless, in the interests of eliciting some discussion, I'll explain how I approached one particular game that I played several months ago. This game was part of a team challenge, and I had a history with my opponent. We had played six games prior to the two we played in 2008, and I was down by two. I wanted to even the score.

Stripes - Adversary [C30]
Team challenge, 26.07.2008

1.e4!?

I tend to prefer queen's pawn openings in important games.

1...e5 2.f4 Bc5

We're already off the beaten paths. I seem to recall that I started using an opening book at this point. I've created several specialized opening books. I call one of these Master Trends. To create it, I first searched my largest database for games played in the past five years in which both players were rated 2200 or higher. These games were then saved into a new database. I found and deleted draws that were twenty moves or less. Then I created a new opening book in ChessBase. The database Master Trends was imported into the opening book, and while the computer did its work, I read a good novel--processing this data takes some time even with a fast computer.

In ChessBase or Fritz I can now open a book window and select the book I've named MT. Three moves present themselves:

3.Nf3
3.Nc3
3.Qh5

3.Qh5 was played once. I can look at that game by searching the source database--Master Trends--for the resulting position, and I might have done so. But, the other two moves deserve and received more attention. With 3.Nc3, White scored 54% over twelve games, achieving a performance rating of 2411. 3.Nf3 is more common, but White's 49% scoring percentage over eighty games is less impressive, as is the 2336 performance. Nevertheless, it was my first candidate, so I opt to play it realizing I may be in for a tough game.

3.Nf3 d6

My opponent follows a well trodden path, and now my opening book shows me six moves that were played. Two account for the overwhelming majority.

4.Nc3
4.c3

The odd looking 4.c3 scores higher. I spent a few hours looking at some of those games and liked what I saw.

4.c3 Nf6 5.Qc2!?

5.d4 was played in a dozen games in my selective database, but I chose an obscure line played once in the past five years, and once in the 1970s. My opponent and I are now following Golovankov,V (2314)-Zacurdajev,D (2249), St Petersburg 2005, which was won by White.

Black to move


5...Nc6 6.b4 Bb6 7.a4 a6

White to move


8.Bb2N

Even though White won, I was not fully satisfied with the line of play adopted. I wanted to push d2-d4, and that required preparation, so I introduced the novelty. My reference game continued 8.Be2 0–0 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.Na3 Ng4 11.h3 Nh6 12.d3 Be6 13.Ng5 Bd7 14.g4 f6 15.Nf3 Be6 16.Nc4 Ba7 17.Ne3 Nf7 18.Kf2 Kh8 19.Kg2 g6 20.h4 Qd7 21.g5 f5 22.b5 Ne7 23.c4 f4 24.Qb2 fxe3 25.Nxe5 Rg8 1–0

8...Ng4 

Postgame analysis with an engine shows that 8...exf4 appears to be winning for Black. The novelty is not worthy of repeating should I ever find myself in this position again.

9.d4 0–0 10.Bc4? 

Better was 10.b5 axb5 11.axb5 Rxa1 12.Bxa1 with a slight advantage for Black

10...exd4–+ 11.Nxd4 Ne3 

11...d5!? is winning 12.Bxd5 Bxd4 13.cxd4 Nxb4–+

12.Qe2 Nxc4 13.Qxc4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 Qf6 15.0–0

The game is starting to shift back my way a little.

Black to move


15...c5 

A better alternative: 15...d5 16.exd5 Re8 17.Nd2 with a slight advantage for Black

16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5± Qg5 18.bxc5 Bc7 

White to move


19.Nc3

Finally!
19.Na3 Bd7±
19.Ra3!

19...Bh3 20.Qe2+- Rad8 21.Ne4 Qg6 22.Ng3 Bg4± 23.Qe4 Qg5 24.Qf4 Qg6 25.Nf5+- Be2?? 26.Ne7+ 1–0

My opening choice and system led to failure, but it worked out okay in the end. I also won with Black, so this adversary and I now stand at four wins each.


A Bit of Deceit

I've described my process based on a selective database and opening book called Master Trends. I created those several years ago, and have tinkered with the process of creation a bit since. I'm currently using Master Trends III, although MT II was the latest when this game was in its early stages.

It may also be worth noting that my engine is able to use these opening books in the engine room at Playchess, where Hiarcs 10 running on my P-III Notebook has scored a few upset draws and wins against Rybka running on a 64-bit box. That experience tells me that the opening book is a quality product!

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2009/01/playing-with-databases.html

Can't you explain your theory/thinking Ziryab without being rude?

I thought that you might have been drunk and board, so I ignored this thread. Of course the only reason that I am writing now is because I am drunk and board, but I think Blackburn said something about scotch stimulating the imagination. 

Unfortunately, no matter how imaginative I am, there is nothing to add to a discusion about databases being unfair. That is like complaining that your opponent is literate; literacy is just something we take for granted.

I still don't understand Ziryab why you created this thread saying database use is unfair and then start giving reasons why they are justified.

I described in detail how I used databases in a game during a game in process. I described the lazy process of following percentages, as well as the thought process that led me to spurn the high percentage line. I described how I selected a game to follow, and why I chose to deviate from that game in my own.

If you cannot take the time to read through that game's annotations (and I am assured that your chesss strength in not enough that you read through that in the three minutes you took to respond), then there is absolutely nothing that I could write that will not come across as rude.

I think that somehow you are missing the context (a new thread every other week that spurns the traditions of correspondence chess, usually by someone unaware of those traditions) and the sarcasm.

I say the same things over and over and over and over in these threads and have been doing it since before the existence of chess.com. I decided to say it another way. Read the first post carefully. 

Does this sentence seem serious? These newbs want to play chess as if it is a game for real men who revel in thier own masculinity instead of the sissy skills of trying to become smarter through study.

Chess_kebabs, sarcasm is often missed as you did. In all fairness though, it is more apparent if one was witness of the heated "discussion" between Ziryab and frankyyy27.

One thing I notice is that is often the lower rated players that complain about database use even though they are likely to reach a position after only a few moves that can no longer be found in a database of master player games. It is one of those mindboggling things that people worry about things that does not even impact them.

This is the crux of the matter. I LIKE RESEARCH. Correspondence chess attracts me for this aspect. People keep saying all sorts of inaccurate nonsense about it, though. This thread is a response to dozens like it by people who want to change my chess to something else.

Earlier, though, you wrote:

I actually found that a database was annoying, it only gives statistics out of a large database of games played.

Databases are collections of games. Sometimes when I am thinking about what to play on move seven, and looking to a database for ideas, I will go through games all the way through the endgame to understand the consequences of moving another pawn so early in the game.

This post was taken from the end of a game in which an unpopular move that scores less well than the most common one was played on move seven, and that I chose to play in my game too.

Interference

Playing the White side of a French Advance, I find myself looking through some master games. These are neither won nor lost in the opening. In Vorobiov -- Volkov, Moscow 2004 White prevailed in the endgame.

White to move

White gave up a rook to assure that his pawn would promote.

57.Re4! Rd3+ 58.Kg4 dxe4 59.e7

Even then, however, Black had a pawn that threatened to complete its journey.

59...Kd2 60.e8Q e3 61.Kf3 Rxb3 62.Qd8+ Ke1 63.Qd5 Ra3 64.Qc5 1-0

Black to move

This fork of rook and pawn ends things. After White's queen is exchanged for rook and e-pawn, White's h-pawn will promote.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/10/interference.html

To the people who say that database moves should not be allowed in games, what exactly is a "database move"? As far as I can tell, 1.e4 is the most prototypically database move of them all. Should that not be allowed? If that's okay and my opponent plays 1...c5, am I allowed to play 2.Nf3, or is that a database move? The notion of "database moves" is incoherent.

Come on sapient, you must be aware that you're merely beating down a strawman :p

Go ahead and try to give a coherent explanation of exactly what does and does not constitute a "database move".

Edit: "database use" is another issue altogether, which is why I carefully said the notion of a "database move" is incoherent.

Wrong. There is a way to write things that will not come across as rude.  If someone lacks understanding in something you don't have to be rude and insult them by saying they are being naive or talking nonsense. You can say to them you're not understanding my message/theory here, and can say that you attribute that to not having as deep a chess knowledge as yourself. There is no need for a character assassination.

So is Dietmar correct, and you were being sarcastic when you created this thread title? If yes, then why not have made that clear rather than hurl insults? 

And of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those guys are just good at chess.

In around 100 CC games here, I have had only once the feeling that my opponent might have been using a computer, and postmortem analysis showed it was not the case.

I find it amazing that most of the "there are cheaters everywhere" come from (relatively) low-rated players, whereas you should expect to find cheaters only at top ratings.

Your ideas, which I understand perfectly well, are based on a lack of information. There is a word for that, for those ideas (not for you, necessarily): naive.

Please note the sentence:

Try to understand the process before you criticize it with naive and inaccurate descriptions.

Naive is an adjective modifying the word descriptions. When ideas are bankrupt, there are limits to my ability to coddle the one holding the ledger book. I'm not gonna tell you there's money there. I must be honest.

If you must still ask whether I'm being sarcastic, I must assume that you opted to not read the thread because I have said so repeatedly (see posts 78 and 86). Also if you read the original post--the first one--and do not see it as sarcasm, you have created an image of me as a sexist.

DB users in correspondence chess can use DB as a learning tool. However, OTB players consider correspondence chess players ratings to be bogus. Correspondence Chess players might as well masturbate into a moist towel at home.

Ok, my bad for missing the sarcasm. I'll leave the discussion now since I misunderstood what you were saying. 

Ummmm....

Ziryab

Some people read this as if it was not satire.

With my rating, I can buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks for $5. My humanities Ph.D. is almost as useful. 

I learned that growing up in a military family during the Vietnam War, growing up Catholic, having siblings, and in Psych 101 as a college freshman. In graduate school, it became easy to forget because I enjoyed seven years of near continuous rational argument with smart people. But, teaching college reminded me anew.

I guess so. Some people may just focus on the content and argue against that, without questioning whether it's really believed. All one has to do is plainly point out the misunderstanding and everyone can move on.