Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database - Chess Forums - Page 13

SocialPanda

Jul 9, 2014

0

#241

ThrillerFan wrote:

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.

Are you talking about chess.com or about USCF Correspondence Chess?

On ICCF, they accepted to adjudicate positions if they are in tablebases:

Convekta agreement

Monday, December 30, 2013

International Correspondence Chess Federation

Convekta Ltd (www.chessok.com) and ICCF have signed a cooperation agreement under which ICCF will have a free access to the endgame tablebases developed by Convekta Ltd and hosted on their website.

The 2013 ICCF Congress in Krakow (Poland) has decided that for all tournaments started after 1/1/2014, the players will be allowed to claim a win or a draw if the position can be resolved in a 6 men tablebase position.

Eric Ruch

ICCF President

http://www.iccf.com/message?message=624

fiddletim

Jul 9, 2014

0

#242

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim....what?

what ? which what? is/how is "winning" important to you chessmate? if you knew you would never "win" a chess game would you still play? How far would you go to "win" a game? if there did not exist the "absurd" notion about "winning"/ "losing" would www.chess.com exist? yes the absurd relative world extends far out from the world of chess. "win" a war? what do you think about "winning", chessmate? the concept/abstraction/reality not relative to this discussion?

Jimmykay

Jul 9, 2014

0

#243

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim....what?

what ? which what? is/how is "winning" important to you chessmate? if you knew you would never "win" a chess game would you still play? do you mean any game ever? no, I would not. How far would you go to "win" a game? no farther than the rules allow. if there did not exist the "absurd" notion about "winning"/ "losing" would www.chess.com exist? what makes the notion of winning/losing absurd? yes the absurd relative world extends far out from the world of chess. "win" a war? chess is just a game. what do you think about "winning", chessmate? the concept/abstraction/reality not relative to this discussion? probably not, as your thesis is unclear; unless I am just not smart enough to understand you.

Ziryab

Jul 9, 2014

0

#244

owltuna wrote:

Finally, I find it bizarre (I know, I am finding a lot of things bizarre) that players would complain that their opponent is acting mindlessly. Seems like an easy path to victory to me.

Brilliant.

Bobbarooski

Jul 9, 2014

0

#245

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?

For me this is the most salient point. It's a different game! Now I understand. Thank you.

fiddletim

Jul 9, 2014

0

#246

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim....what?

what ? which what? is/how is "winning" important to you chessmate? if you knew you would never "win" a chess game would you still play? do you mean any game ever? no, I would not. How far would you go to "win" a game? no farther than the rules allow. if there did not exist the "absurd" notion about "winning"/ "losing" would www.chess.com exist? what makes the notion of winning/losing absurd? yes the absurd relative world extends far out from the world of chess. "win" a war? chess is just a game. what do you think about "winning", chessmate? the concept/abstraction/reality not relative to this discussion? probably not, as your thesis is unclear; unless I am just not smart enough to understand you.

nice thanks ill be thinking about what you write im not that smart, just not quite "thoughtFULL" as of yet.

dragonair234

Jul 9, 2014

0

#247

Sred wrote:

Of course it's fair. Both players can use a database, nobody gets an unfair advantage. If he refuses to play you, just play someone else.

Nice upside down pawn lol xD

fiddletim

Jul 10, 2014

0

#248

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim....what?

what ? which what? is/how is "winning" important to you chessmate? if you knew you would never "win" a chess game would you still play? do you mean any game ever? no, I would not. How far would you go to "win" a game? no farther than the rules allow. if there did not exist the "absurd" notion about "winning"/ "losing" would www.chess.com exist? what makes the notion of winning/losing absurd? yes the absurd relative world extends far out from the world of chess. "win" a war? chess is just a game. what do you think about "winning", chessmate? the concept/abstraction/reality not relative to this discussion? probably not, as your thesis is unclear; unless I am just not smart enough to understand you.

nice thanks ill be thinking about what you write im not that smart, just not quite "thoughtFULL" as of yet.

"chess is just a game" "....just a game"....has reportedly driven people insane...just a game....the world was watching Spassky-Fischer, national pride at stake, peace teetering on the edge of a cold war 1972....just a game...careers made and broken....just a game? is it? i agree, it is just a game. but isn't that absurd?

Kapashiro

Jul 11, 2014

0

#249

batgirl wrote:

If this rule is unwritten, who unwrote it?

Checkmate atheists.

Jimmykay

Jul 11, 2014

0

#250

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

fiddletim....what?

what ? which what? is/how is "winning" important to you chessmate? if you knew you would never "win" a chess game would you still play? do you mean any game ever? no, I would not. How far would you go to "win" a game? no farther than the rules allow. if there did not exist the "absurd" notion about "winning"/ "losing" would www.chess.com exist? what makes the notion of winning/losing absurd? yes the absurd relative world extends far out from the world of chess. "win" a war? chess is just a game. what do you think about "winning", chessmate? the concept/abstraction/reality not relative to this discussion? probably not, as your thesis is unclear; unless I am just not smart enough to understand you.

nice thanks ill be thinking about what you write im not that smart, just not quite "thoughtFULL" as of yet.

"chess is just a game" "....just a game"....has reportedly driven people insane...just a game....the world was watching Spassky-Fischer, national pride at stake, peace teetering on the edge of a cold war 1972....just a game...careers made and broken....just a game? is it? i agree, it is just a game. but isn't that absurd?

Existentially, yes.