Game Explorer and Cheating

I would not agree with you at all.

Surely the best way to learn is by trial-and-error? And using your own capabilities to determine what to do when faced with an opening you don't know - a good player should be able to avoid traps with their own chess knowledge.

Why not use a computer to play?

 

texaspete wrote:

I would not agree with you at all.

Surely the best way to learn is by trial-and-error? And using your own capabilities to determine what to do when faced with an opening you don't know - a good player should be able to avoid traps with their own chess knowledge.

Why not use a computer to play?

 

---

 A computer assists you throughout the game to the point where you're not even playing, which is bad. The opening explorer and chess books can really only help you in the opening, and do not play the rest of the game for you.

Seriously though, not having to strain your memory (memorizing opening lines, etc.) is one of the benefits of correspondence chess. Why don't you try live chess if you don't like it?

If anyone is interested in playing OTB (even occasionally) you may want to check out the Group "Circle of Trust" we are just a group of people who believe we have formed a sanctuary where those who wish to play a game using the mind can go and do so. You can always play members outside the group to any rules you agree on, but inside the Group, with other group members, you play as though you are sitting across from a friend. 

But copying moves from a database isn't really using your mind is it?

Like I said, I know the rules allow it in correspondence - just that I think reading up on a specific line while in the game is poor sportsmanship .

It's like seeing the exam paper a week before your exam, and being able to revise for the specific questions that come up

interesting debate. I guess i fall into the learning camp, i dont mind if i lose a few games and points because i was trying a new line or whatever. If using the games explorer will help me to learn, im happy to use it. If someone was really bothered that i might be using it in the middle of a correspondance game, they could say from the outset they would prefer that i not. But at the moment, it's in the rules, so i think i'll keep trying to learn

Dom 

i think it's actualy important to use opening databases whilst playing a game, so you will know what to do when a position apears, but i agree that guessing the best reply and lokking at the positions that derive from it is more fun :), there is nothing wrong with looking at other peoples' games while playing yours and copying them, but what win you gain from it yourself?

I'm with texaspete on this one. 
All anyone needs to play a game of chess is a bagful of pieces and a board. That's one of the intrinsic beauties of the game - it's apparent simplicity. Computers aren't needed. Neither are books, databases, cell phones or nuclear submarines.  Every single step away from what's necessary is a step into treacherous waters.

 

So, you want to be a writer/
But don't know how or when?/
Find a quiet place/
Use a humble pen.
                           -Paul Simon

 

batgirl wrote:

I'm with texaspete on this one. 
All anyone needs to play a game of chess is a bagful of pieces and a board. That's one of the intrinsic beauties of the game - it's apparent simplicity. Computers aren't needed. Neither are books, databases, cell phones or nuclear submarines.  Every single step away from what's necessary is a step into treacherous waters.

 

So, you want to be a writer/
But don't know how or when?/
Find a quiet place/
Use a humble pen.
                           -Paul Simon

 

---

Batgirl always gets it right. 

texaspete wrote:

But copying moves from a database isn't really using your mind is it?

What if I were to completely memorize an opening, and then merely play it by memory? I'm not using my mind to figure out the moves, I'm simply playing what I remember. But, of course many (me included) have trouble memorizing some tremendous lines, and using a database greatly relieves the stress of it all. 

Like I said, I know the rules allow it in correspondence - just that I think reading up on a specific line while in the game is poor sportsmanship.

So...players are forbidden to learn during the course of their correspondence game? I jest, but seriously how is it poor sportsmanship if every player is allowed this privilege? Your argument clearly encourages the mindless memorization of opening lines. However, I do apologize about your opponents no longer falling for your opening traps because of databases. I truly am deeply sorry.

It's like seeing the exam paper a week before your exam, and being able to revise for the specific questions that come up

Not quite. Its actually more like being allowed notes during a "test". However, notes are rarely allowed during an "exam", similar to how database help is prohibited in OTB tournaments. Correspondence and OTB are two different (albeit similar) things and the use of databases in correspondence should be seen more as a blessing than as a bane. I know it may seem like I'm trying to prove you wrong, but I'm only trying to get you to see the benefits of database help in correspondence chess.

---

 

i think the ethical dilemna is that the Games Explorer is too easy to use without thinking.  references are allowed and encouraged in coorespondence chess.  sometimes, it's not about the rules but the spirit of the rules.  determining the spirit of rules is usually up to interpretation, unless it is specified by the rule-maker along with the rule.  i accept opening references like books and most of the stuff you find on the web.  The Games Explorer is too simple, organized, and comprehensive and does not include strategy annotation (i understand why) that a book would have.  So, one may get 10-15 moves deep in a line and never know why they got there. i think the spirit of the rule is to encourage learning. the game explorer has just enough rope to hang yourself.  But, i'm glad it's here.

I'm fairly new back to chess but I last played Correspondence chess 30 years ago.  I had and still have an old copy of Batsford Chess openings and I used that then to plan and respond to the opening.  Perhaps upto ten moves depth then.  I also had my old notes on games.

The Chess Explorer here is good and can take you quite a bit further into the game, depending on the opening.  It's really dependant on the available data which I imagine will grow over time.  Let's say 8 to15 moves depth dependant on the popularity and complexity of the opening

There are other databases.  Chessbase is probably the most well known coming with millions of games and you can buy more.  How deep this data can take you I don't know.

I do imagine that a suitably 'tooled up' player might have bought many millions more games which would allow him to select the optimum move perhaps up to move 20.  This is beyond the opening and well into the middle game.

Now my average game is 33 moves so if I 'tool myself' up I really only need to think for myself quite late on in the game.

The difference between 'old' correspondence chess data and modern data is ease of access.  Years ago I picked up Batsford, planned a line and read about the options, learning on the way.  Now with databases I look at my opponents move and I select the most successful response.  No thought really needed and no learning achieved.

I'm not going to criticise anyone for the tools they use because they are allowed but this is how I will play.

Outside tournaments I will use my trusty Batsford and Wiki (the prints bigger!) and if I come across an opening I'm not familiar with then I'll peruse Explorer and the most popular lines up to a depth of 10 moves.

In tournaments I'll not use databases past 6 moves.

As my knowledge returns then I'll put away the toys.

There are of course artificial barriers.  You can choose your own but I just want you to know where I'm coming from because I think this is a good way to learn and understand the openings.

 

Erik, I would like to make a proposal concerning OTB chess here at chess.com. Personally, I never use books during a game for a line.  I always wait until afterwards to research, I just feel that that is the courteous thing to do.  To me, this includes the explorer.  For example, in our game, I played my own original ideas, never once consulting an engine or explorer.  Afterwards, I looked up a different line to get new ideas.  But I waited.

Here is my proposal - make two rooms in the live chess, one with option to consult the explorer, and one where it is not allowed.  I don't know if this is possible.  If not, then oh well.  As a personal note, if you feel you need help against me that bad, or you want to learn new ideas, then why not wait until afterwards and talk about the moves?  This is where a broadcast room comes in handy.  The two opponents could go to an analysis room together and discuss ideas.  Afterwards, they could come back and compete in the same line together.  Plus, this gives people even more of a chance to develop friendships.  I love to analyze about as much as I do playing, especially with another person.  They think differently than me, and I learn new things. 

I do believe in creating ideas that cater against a person's strength, but I would never use an outside source during a match for that purpose. 

Okay, I misunderstood that...sorry :-).  I thought people were advocating use of the explorer for live chess. 

My experiance tells me that if you use outside influances to gain in an advantage you have lost your integrity in that game and any win is a hollow victory because you won the game using other peoples experiance other than your own. I have no problem in studying outside of a game that is how we all learn but I tend to study my own games and see what I could have done differantly. Chess opening have always been a shortfal of mine but I muddle through and learn with each experiance. I have recently joined a group call the great british team and their focus is on Openings so I am looking forward to that and we have a torney thats starts tomorrow. Winning is nice but not the be and end all of it. This is a past time for me not a life time

Thats my tuppence worth (Smiles)

It's funny this debate came up now... I had only just been thinking I needed to write an article called:

Beginners, Play Better Turn-Based Chess Now... 

The whole thesis of the article was that beginners need to play Correspondece Chess here, not try to pretend that correspondence chess is just very very slow OTB.   Use the database, and learn from the database. If done consciously CC can be the greatest learning tool there is!

It's nonsensical to hear players casting moral aspersions on use of a database in CC -- Huh? Is en passant cheating too? Research is part of the rules. The legality and "morality" of it is not in question.

But beyond the fact that it makes sense to use the database to win, are more important considerations -- I don't advocate using the database because I think winning is all that important. (And I lose plenty of games, using all the DBs I can) I think using the Db shows you actually understand what CC is all about! You see, I don't want to play chess against sloppy improvised bad openings; I don't need the win... it's a waste of time. If I wanted to play that kind of chess I wouldn't need 36 hours to make my move and I sure don't want to wait 3 days to see those moves from my opponent. It's not about winning, but I came to play good or even great chess! ... I can go play blitz and I'll match you blunder for blunder -- I truly suck at blitz. But that is NOT what CC is supposed to be about. 

Chess.com has (modified) correspondence chess and it's different from OTB. You can set up the pieces on the board and move them around, you can take all the time you need (okay there is a time control, but it's rather generous) you can do lots of things that you can't do in ordinary chess.

Correspondence chess sets you an extraordinary challenge which most players are  too lazy to take up!

Correspondence chess sets you this challenge: Show me the best chess you can possibly create! Play the best chess game you possibly can short of having someone (or something) else play for you. 

Gone are all your usual excuses... you cannot say: oh I didn't have time to find the best move. I rushed. Oh I couldn't really examine the board properly you see I don't visualize very well if I could only move the pieces around then I might have found the mate in 4...   Oh I went wrong in the opening I don't know that opening... it was a trap. etc.

None of that holds up in CC... It's let's see your best chess with all available resources.

If both you and your opponent take up this challenge you get an extraordinary benefit. 

Correspondence chess let's you get to a promised land you will likely never see without taking full advantage of CC rules.  In CC you can get to "novelty" land... virgin snow! Moves that could actually matter. As both players pilot the game out along the opening book, out along the database of games by master players they pilot the game out of the charted waters of theory out to the edge of theory out to where the moves are the ones that GMs contemplate... and when the game steps out of the tree 17 moves deep in some variation of the KID -- it's because someone is saying... from here all the masters ahead of me only managed to find draws, or losses... I gotta try to do better.  It's awesome! You are starting your game at a very interesting moment -- stepping into terra incognita. 

Instead, in OTB, beginners and lower-rated players left to their own devices rarely or never get to actually play a middle game from a theoretically sound position. Beginner set-ups are an uncoordinated mash of pieces... By using a database a beginner can jump start his understanding of the middlegame by beginning his middlegames from a playable meaningfully tense position, one  equipoised against another army squared up for battle in an equally logical fashion. In CC you basically begin from where masters left off -- what's not to like? 

As a learning tool, nothing sinks a line into my mind faster than going over it, every day, in CC chess. Just keying the moves into different databases a dozen times or more early on as I'm exploring which way I want the game to go, this cements the opening line, and where it's going, into my brain.

And now I've begun playing over my whole game from memory each time I look at the board until at least move 20 (and I'm starting to think I should do it with the whole game.).    

I'm new to CC, but I'm learning how to get more out of it with every game (and I'm playing less and less games at once as I do... I'm down to 1 active currently... I think I can handle two or three tops...)  

When I get out at the end at the end of the database, where there are only a few games left down my line -- I look ahead and play thru the games remaining looking at what plans the masters ahead of me have chosen. Looking at how things may develop, thematically. (Looking for sacs too!) What kinds of endgames arise. It's a great way to improve one's ability to assess a position strategically -- seeing the choices masters have made and their varying successes with them. 

As I said: Correspondence chess presents a unique challenge... Show us the best chess you can. And it offers a uniquely slowed down studious yet competitive environment that IMO is ideal for learning. Instead of fighting against and bad-mouthing the research the CC rules encourage why not use it for all it's worth:

Slow down, take your time, use databases, books, research, the analysis board and play beautiful chess!  

 

Big supporter of the explorer. It helps a lot for those lines where you've always winged it, mostly won, but never looked up the lines in a book. I'm thinking about openings like (d4 c5 d5 e5 e4 d6 f4 type of stuff).

Thanks - this has cleared the issue up for me.

Research should happen before a game (to learn lines) or after the game (to explore new lines that you are exposed to). During the game, shouldn't you rely on your own capabilites as a player?

The argument about learning lessons during the game is flawed - you do not need to consult a database during a game to learn. You analyse your game afterwards if confronted with an opening you don't know.

As for 'mindless memorisation' of openings - all it encourages is a good understanding of opening theory. Surely part of being a good chess player? And it's not memorisation of openings - it's understanding the principles behind an opening and good opening theory. Surely database use encourages mindless copying of what moves your database tells you to make without necessarily thinking why certain moves are made?

Say I have a problem with tactical situations - why can't I consult a computer and see what it suggests? I can learn that way because being exposed to the best moves and playing them will help me spot tactics. Logically this seems to fit in with the arguments to use game explorer.

Again, I know the rules, and that I am not with them. I will continue not to check the answer book as I go along in games. I might lose more games if I'm playing against people who are checking the answer book and always make the strongest moves in the opening and early middle-game.

I guess it's because I only really started playing on the internet using correspondence as a substitute for live games. More seasoned correspondence players will disagree (waiting for postal games must make poor opening moves more annoying to face or make).

 

No I am not trying to say I am "better". The rules are there, as I have acknowledged several times, and they say it is ok to do this, therefore it is ok.

I was merely commenting about whether it is a good thing the rules are as they are. Obviously I'm in a minority.

Why the negativity?

It may improve your rating but not your game if you do not seek the idea behind GM's moves. It may even be worse for your rating if the move is based on a plan that elludes your thoughts. Be sure that before using another's move as your own you really feel confident in this move - that you know why you play iot and not another.

I don't look up other games for mid-games, but if I did that how I would do it. First I'd think about the game, select a couple of moves that are appealing and I would already choose the one I would play if it was a face to face game. Then only I would check in the database (and a game analyser if it isn't against the rules) to find out what better players would play. Once that move is found I'd try to understand why this move is the best one (especially if it isn't part of the previously selected moves), to make sure that if I haven't been able to find that move in the first place, that, at least, I now understand why it is indeed the best move, therefore improving my chess skills.