Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

No there is not an unwritten rule about not using a database.

There IS a written rule about not using a database

That is exactly what I said!

chaotic_iak

If you have something to say then do so instead of simple ejaculating "wrong!"  I assume you're talking about the complement of a countably infinite set being equivalent in size and you'd be correct. Or perhaps you're speaking about cardinality?  I can only guess as you didn't share with us.

Aleph-0 is an infininity having the same cardinality as the smallest set set of infinite intigers.  Aleph-1 is the the smallest infinite set that is greater than Aleph-0.

Any set that can be put into one-to-one correspondance with the infinite set of integer is also a countably infinite set.

{2⋅n∣n∈N}

An uncountable infinite set has a countably infinite subsets. As far as I know the only set required to be uncountably infinite is that of real numbers -- the set of all rational + imaginary.

All natural numbers are uncountably infinite. All integers are a countably infinite subset of natural numbers.  As are the real numbers between 1.0 and 2.0.  Those are inifinite but are obviously not congruent with all real numbers.

Aleph-null is considered the smallest infinite set.

If you have something instructive to say I'm all ears and quite willing to learn.  If you simply want to bark "wrong" and expect me to just take your word for it I'm not interested.

"Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-null bottles of beer, Take one down, and pass it around, Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall"

come on pencil dick here i am little fuck

??

[edited] Countability or uncountability arguments have no place here - the number of possible positions is finite, and bounded by 1000*65^32 (each of the 32 pieces on one of the 64 squares, or taken, and a factor of 1000 for good measure with castling rights and en passant options); the number of possible games is bounded by 1000^(50*2*(30+6*2)): draw occurs after 50 moves from each side without a capture or a pawn move (each pawn can move only 6 times before it promotes), and at each move there are at most 1000 possible moves.

Of course taking more careful estimates is possible and advisable if you want a (less un)realistic order of magnitude but the point is that no matter how large, those numbers are finite.

What I was saying is that:

1-storing all possible sequences of moves instead of all possible positions is a bad idea;

2-if you take a random position in the set of all legal positions, it is very likely to be completely winning for either side. So it would be nice to restrict the tablebase to "positions that still need some fighting".

But there is no way to determine "completely winning" in human terms by an algorithmic method. A mate in 20 is easy to see for computers, but you need to include it in the tablebase because it is not obvious for humans. An endgame with one more exchange for no compensation might take another 70 moves before mate but the human cannot go wrong.

I would guess than even if step 2 was feasible the amount of storage needed would still exceed physical limits, but that's a rough call - who knows how many "not obvious" positions there are?

I think that the rule against using a database in live chess is written.

RanxOrOx, n -> 2n+1 is a bijective mapping between the set of natural numbers and the set of odd numbers, so both have the same cardinality Aleph 0. Therefore no mathematician would say that one of these sets is smaller than the other.

Also note that there are only finitely many chess positions.

I understand it this way.

There are a limited number of chess positions because there are a limited number of squares and a limited number of pieces to go on these squares. These are knowns. I leave the mathematicians to work out how many possible positions there are. I think the number is big, but it is not infinity.

The set of odd numbers is smaller in an order based on set inclusion rather than cardinality - perfectly legitimate for a mathematician to say in the correct context. :)

I have being meditating on this tools you pointed to me. Ceirtanly the use of database is not only acepted but it is encourage and there is designs in place to make it easier, for those paying the premiun.

I have come to the conclusion that i am going to avoid this kind of games as long as my opening theory is so weak as it is rigth now, when i feel stronger i can reconsider playing this kind of games. I have just withdrawn the tournaments i was part of.

I am considering playing the 960 only, as long as I am so weak on opening theory, do you know any say tool on place i should be aware of?

I appreciate your advise.

Yes, set inclusion is a partial ordering relation, so formally you are right. It's just that mathematicians usually use cardinality when it comes to comparing sizes of sets, and cardinality was also the size notion RanxOrOx was refering to.

htda: there are many free online databases, if your opponent is not premium, he can still be using databases if he wants to do it.

Yes, there are free databases much larger than the game explorer on chess.com.

Btw hdtavidth, you don't need to know much opening theory to use a database in a reasonable way. Of course you shouldn't just follow an unknown line from the database. Instead, play the moves you usually play, explore the most common alternatives and answers, study some master games played from your position. That's fun and one learns a lot - not about opening theory, but about the most reasonable plans available for both sides in a given position.

That being said, books are much more useful than a database, at least at my level.

I am on the idea that i should study before a game, as preparation, or after a game, to learn from my mistakes, but not study during the game. At that time a player should be let to his brain only, even thoug memorice a 100k database if he can.

I still wondering if there is tools like databases on 960.

At this moment I think the weaker part of my game is on the opening.

htda: games can last for months (I have played games that lasted almost 2 years in another organizations), are you going to stop studying your favorite opening during that time?

I´m almost sure that the weakest part of your game is not the opening, but the endgame, tactics, strategy, etc etc.

Owltuna: I don't understand why you keep saying someone claim such things... that is not the point.

SocialPanda: I don't study ongoing games. I personally don't have the experience of a 2 years long game. Asuming i get in a game that long I guess after so much I will keep my study, but will not study the say position on the board with the help of databases or such.

htda: another thing to consider is that being able to use a database can be beneficial to someone like yourself who might be weaker on opening theory.  It will help to nullify any superior opening knowledge that your opponent has and you'll have a better chance to at least reach a playable middlegame.

Plus, you can explore different lines and learn more about your openings at the same time.

to your credit, you really did this. I applaud your integrity, but disagree with your position.