Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database - Chess Forums - Page 12

Irontiger

Jul 9, 2014

0

#221

Jimmykay wrote:

Sharon_231 wrote:

One more thing if a player has a database of 'Chess engine games' is it fair that the player is using a database?

What if the player starts to use a personal database of random positions as well?

Is it fair at all?

Yes, it is within the rules.

...though completely impossible to discriminate from computer-assisted play if the player wins shortly in the opening.

Jimmykay

Jul 9, 2014

0

#222

Irontiger wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

Sharon_231 wrote:

One more thing if a player has a database of 'Chess engine games' is it fair that the player is using a database?

What if the player starts to use a personal database of random positions as well?

Is it fair at all?

Yes, it is within the rules.

...though completely impossible to discriminate from computer-assisted play if the player wins shortly in the opening.

True, but most short opening wins are already in most databases of human play as well.

TheGrobe

Jul 9, 2014

0

#223

jlconn wrote:

batgirl wrote:

Do you mean idiotic or eidetic or a melding of the two?

Well played, I clearly meant eidetic.

You think you'd remember how to spell it....

TheGrobe

Jul 9, 2014

0

#224

Jimmykay wrote:

Also, they changed the ToS a few months ago, as was pointed out. You are now allowed to post such drivel in "off-topic". I conceded that point.

If you wrote better, more people might respond.

If you wrote something that was on topic more people might respond. Off Topic threads get buried and are unlikely to get much response regardless of the quality of your writing or the content therein.

TheGrobe

Jul 9, 2014

0

#225

Sharon_231 wrote:

One more thing if a player has a database of 'Chess engine games' is it fair that the player is using a database?

What if the player starts to use a personal database of random positions as well?

Is it fair at all?

It's all allowed, though I'm not sure what benefit could possibly be derived from a database of random positions. The power of databases is how the positions related to each other through the lens of past games played. A random position in a database untethered to other positions or any context whatsoever tells you nothing.

johnmusacha

Jul 9, 2014

0

#226

TheGrobe wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

Also, they changed the ToS a few months ago, as was pointed out. You are now allowed to post such drivel in "off-topic". I conceded that point.

If you wrote better, more people might respond.

If you wrote something that was on topic more people might respond. Off Topic threads get buried and are unlikely to get much response regardless of the quality of your writing or the content therein.

Unless you are a public relations master, such as myself.

Ketchup popsicles to ladies wearing white gloves brah

Jimmykay

Jul 9, 2014

0

#227

TheGrobe wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

Also, they changed the ToS a few months ago, as was pointed out. You are now allowed to post such drivel in "off-topic". I conceded that point.

If you wrote better, more people might respond.

If you wrote something that was on topic more people might respond. Off Topic threads get buried and are unlikely to get much response regardless of the quality of your writing or the content therein.

Or if he just took my original advice and join "Open Discussion" where people love debating this stuff.

fiddletim

Jul 9, 2014

0

#228

jlconn wrote:

owltuna wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why absolutely nobody wants to address the issue of wood-pushing analysis and note-taking. Why do they think that issue is a non-starter? Clearly, note taking and wood pushing is against the rules of OTB/Live chess, but nobody complains about it in "Online."

What Chess.com calls "online" is really nothing more than correspondence chess over the Internet, with a nice interface.

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that any amount of "wood-pushing analysis" and note taking is allowed in Chess.com's "online" chess, but not at all in "live".

i hear you. thanks

johnmusacha

Jul 9, 2014

0

#229

Open Discussion is about five people, including some really nasty sorts that intentionally make misleading arguments and lie about sources.

Jimmykay

Jul 9, 2014

0

#230

johnmusacha wrote:

Open Discussion is about five people, including some really nasty sorts that intentionally make misleading arguments and lie about sources.

There are far more than 5 people, but yes, it is a hostile environment. There are some highly intelligent people who make great posts as well, though. It seemed to me that our budding political essayist was looking for a arguements, and I think he would like it.

pt22064

Jul 9, 2014

0

#231

I don't use a database because I don't own one, and neo-Luddite that I am, I don't even know how to purchase or access an electronic database. The only "openings database" I have access to is MCO (and the edition that I have was published in the 1970s).

I don't have any objections to someone using a database when playing correspondence chess, as that is within the rules. Any advantage from using the database will be slight in any event because no matter what database one uses, eventually one will reach a position that is "out of book."

johnmusacha

Jul 9, 2014

0

#232

Jimmykay wrote:

johnmusacha wrote:

Open Discussion is about five people, including some really nasty sorts that intentionally make misleading arguments and lie about sources.

There are far more than 5 people, but yes, it is a hostile environment. There are some highly intelligent people who make great posts as well, though. It seemed to me that our budding political essayist was looking for a arguements, and I think he would like it.

Oh I'm sure that Narco guy would fit right in.

TheGrobe

Jul 9, 2014

0

#233

pt22064 wrote:

I don't use a database because I don't own one, and neo-Luddite that I am, I don't even know how to purchase or access an electronic database. The only "openings database" I have access to is MCO (and the edition that I have was published in the 1970s).

I don't have any objections to someone using a database when playing correspondence chess, as that is within the rules. Any advantage from using the database will be slight in any event because no matter what database one uses, eventually one will reach a position that is "out of book."

This one's provided right here on this site:

http://www.chess.com/explorer/

TheGrobe

Jul 9, 2014

0

#234

pt22064 wrote:

I don't use a database because I don't own one, and neo-Luddite that I am, I don't even know how to purchase or access an electronic database. The only "openings database" I have access to is MCO (and the edition that I have was published in the 1970s).

I don't have any objections to someone using a database when playing correspondence chess, as that is within the rules. Any advantage from using the database will be slight in any event because no matter what database one uses, eventually one will reach a position that is "out of book."

The advantage conferred depends entirely on how they use the database.

If they are simply replaying the "best move" as evinced by win/draw/loss percentages then yes, they'll be lost once out of book.

If they are truly understanding the opening and the principles and goals behind it, and using the databse to guide them to what they feel is a favourable middle game position, well, that's a different story.

pt22064

Jul 9, 2014

0

#235

owltuna wrote:

I chalk it up to inexperience with traditional correspondance chess. Well, mostly. There's also the issue of steadfast obstinance in the face of well-reasoned and well-presented explanations of the rationale behind the rules.

Why be so resistant to what is clearly just a different set of rules for a very different kind of game? I may as well complain about constantly losing on time up 20 pawns in a bullet game. What the hell, it's a different game, why complain?

I'm still trying to figure out why absolutely nobody wants to address the issue of wood-pushing analysis and note-taking. Why do they think that issue is a non-starter? Clearly, note taking and wood pushing is against the rules of OTB/Live chess, but nobody complains about it in "Online."

Maybe I've answered my own question. Maybe none of the mob want to address those two clear distinctions because it would help them realize that it truly is a different game with a different purpose, and that would render their obstinance null and void.

Yes, I agree. Bullet chess is very unfair. There should be a minimum of 1 hour for each player in bullet chess. The people who beat me at bullet when i run out of time are cheating. Clearly, they should give me more time to make the game more fair.

Ziryab

Jul 9, 2014

0

#236

johnmusacha wrote:

Open Discussion is about five people, including some really nasty sorts that intentionally make misleading arguments and lie about sources.

Sounds like the US Congress.

Sred

Jul 9, 2014

0

#237

owltuna wrote:

<snip>

Replying to pt22064, exactly right, the database only gets one so far. And there are limited free online databases than can be consulted.

</snip>

I didn't use it myself so far, but http://icofy-blog.de/ is free and I wouldn't call it limited.

fiddletim

Jul 9, 2014

0

#238

somewhere above, statements were made about "winning". one was myself stating "i like to win". not the primary thing but important for me. this discussion and basic curiousity cause me to examine that phenomena both in myself and generally speaking. now if i have had the experience of "winning", are my judgements and comments about "winning" valid ? "winning " a chess game seems to be a "positive reinforcement" of....? maybe im not risking the rating status ratio of "high rating" = "more possible students" = "more invites to prestigious (wow these forum are helping me look at my spelling) tournaments" = $$$$$$$$$$$...need some more?...here....$$$$$$....STILL, for whatever reason, "winning" is important to me. life is not fair as we know. i dont want to "bite" anybody and you sure better not "bite" me.

Jimmykay

Jul 9, 2014

0

#239

fiddletim....what?

ThrillerFan

Jul 9, 2014

0

#240

finngigahertz wrote:

Well, what if somebody had a database of all posible positions? I know it's impossible to get, but they wouldn't even need to know how to play chess. I think you should avoid using them.

This is extremely flawed logic.

Databases in Correspondence Chess are perfectly legal. With what this fool is saying, he's referring to tablebases, which exist for 5 and 6 pieces. There has been talk in the past about adjudicating all positions of 6 or less pieces based on whether the position is a theoretical win for White, Black, or a draw, but they decided against it for now and you still play out 5-piece positions unless one of the players resigns or they agree to a draw.