In online chess, you are allowed databases. You can play without your queen as well if you want, but that doesn't mean others can't use theirs.
R database players scared of playing real chess?
Sort:
Let it go Frankyyy. Seriously man, you're too good a player to continue demeaning yourself this way. Correspondence chess rules go back generations. You might as well look at American football and complain that the ball isn't round and they're not even kicking it most of the time. Different rules for different games, even if they are called the same thing.
Ok bad....its still annoying me but ur correct...by the way football is played with the foot...:) thanks...bit drunk..but i'll let it go..:)
Life has changed...corresponsance chess made sense in my fathers day...its usage is not needed in this techno age...surley people can get this information online?
baddogno wrote:
Let it go Frankyyy. Seriously man, you're too good a player to continue demeaning yourself this way. Correspondence chess rules go back generations. You might as well look at American football and complain that the ball isn't round and they're not even kicking it most of the time. Different rules for different games, even if they are called the same thing.
argument from tradition doesn't mean anything.
I don't think database use should be allowed
im a decent player roughly 1650 which puts me in the top 10 percent...why do people disrespect lower ranked players any way....just cause u spend hiurs studying dont make u better..just more anal....learn to enjoy and embrace the game
lets just play chess...thanks hole:)
A few hundred years ago black people were slaves...was this correct?
my point mickey is cc encourages it...never gonna stop cheats..but it should be discouraged
chessmicky wrote:
Well, most CC players like to play with databases--and before there were databases, they liked to play with opening books and copies of the Chess Informants. Dedicated CC players are like research scientists. always searching for the ultimate truth in a position. You may not care to play that way, but there's no reason why all the people who enjoy playing their way would change just to accomodate you.
Also, I don't think your analogy to slavery works at all! I can't remember one case on an innocent person being kidnapped, dragged away in chains, and forced by a brutal master to play correspondence chess.
Well said!
I feel that way on this site....im gonna keep posting this question till cc stops me or someine gives me a good answer...u dbs r just plain scared to play chess
the percecentage of people using databases on online chess is beliow 20
frankyyy27 wrote:
I feel that way on this site....im gonna keep posting this question till cc stops me or someine gives me a good answer...u dbs r just plain scared to play chess
You're not paying attention, or you are lying, when you say that no one has given you a good answer. I've already told you:
Databases and Their Discontents
Ever since the dawn of civilization, humans have sought help in games of chess that did not conclude in a single sitting. Such help takes many forms. Sometimes the help is actively encouraged. Other times it is forbidden.
When I was young, top level chess tournaments and world championship matches were characterized by adjournments. After many hours of play, a competitor would seal a move, eat a small meal, and go to sleep. While he slept, teams of seconds would labor through the night, analyzing the likely continuations. After a night of sleep and a hearty breakfast, the player would spend the morning with his seconds learning the results of overnight research. He returned to the game fully prepared for the next stages.
When I started playing correspondence chess, I began to value another sort of assistance: reference books. While playing my games, I would pore through every chess book within reach looking for comparable positions. Playing better correspondence chess became a principal motive for acquiring certain books. The benefits of this research spilled over into my non-aided games. More often I found myself playing openings that I had studied in great detail with practical application to some game in progress.
The emergence of database software sped up the research process. While it once took many hours to find all of Alekhine's games against the Nimzo-Indian, now they could be located in seconds. Going through the games to glean the necessary insights still required much labor, but it was no longer necessary to set up a chess board. Games in the database could be played through on-screen.
The Rules
In correspondence chess, help is openly encouraged and forbidden depending on the venue and the nature of the help. Some chess organizations conclude that help from books, databases, and even engines is undetectable and make no efforts to prevent assistance. Others distinguish between allowable help and banned: most often books and databases are permitted, but engine use is not.
The United States Chess Federation rules are typical:
In the past ten years a growing number of chess sites have added another dimension. Correspondence chess games are much faster, there is less record keeping, and far less expense. Moreover, thousands of players who never mailed a postcard are engaged as adversaries. These chess sites have offered a new vocabulary to describe an old practice: turn-based chess, online correspondence, correspondence-style, online chess, net-chess.
The terms and conditions of these sites explain acceptable and unacceptable help:
Opposition to Database Use
Many players express the view that use of databases is distinct from putting thought into the game. A chess enthusiast calling herself ChessMom raised this issue stridently on the Red Hot Pawn forums in a thread called "How to learn and not cheat," "you're supposed to play out of your own brain, not somebody else's brain." The thoughtlessness of database use cropped up again in "Nagging Question: Are you for or against the use of Databases, and why?" on Chess.com. Peedee suggested, "[u]sing someone elses [sic] brain for the first 20 moves completely invalidates ANY contest. In fact, getting outside help AT ALL is just nonsense."
Several posters in these threads offer their views that research requires skill.
When I was young, top level chess tournaments and world championship matches were characterized by adjournments. After many hours of play, a competitor would seal a move, eat a small meal, and go to sleep. While he slept, teams of seconds would labor through the night, analyzing the likely continuations. After a night of sleep and a hearty breakfast, the player would spend the morning with his seconds learning the results of overnight research. He returned to the game fully prepared for the next stages.
When I started playing correspondence chess, I began to value another sort of assistance: reference books. While playing my games, I would pore through every chess book within reach looking for comparable positions. Playing better correspondence chess became a principal motive for acquiring certain books. The benefits of this research spilled over into my non-aided games. More often I found myself playing openings that I had studied in great detail with practical application to some game in progress.
The emergence of database software sped up the research process. While it once took many hours to find all of Alekhine's games against the Nimzo-Indian, now they could be located in seconds. Going through the games to glean the necessary insights still required much labor, but it was no longer necessary to set up a chess board. Games in the database could be played through on-screen.
The Rules
In correspondence chess, help is openly encouraged and forbidden depending on the venue and the nature of the help. Some chess organizations conclude that help from books, databases, and even engines is undetectable and make no efforts to prevent assistance. Others distinguish between allowable help and banned: most often books and databases are permitted, but engine use is not.
The United States Chess Federation rules are typical:
You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players. You cannot use a computer or computer program (chessplaying algorithms) to evaluate a game, but you may use computers for record keeping and databases.Countless hours might be spent gathering evidence against suspected violators so they might be disciplined.
"Your Responsibilities as a Player,"http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7521/393/
In the past ten years a growing number of chess sites have added another dimension. Correspondence chess games are much faster, there is less record keeping, and far less expense. Moreover, thousands of players who never mailed a postcard are engaged as adversaries. These chess sites have offered a new vocabulary to describe an old practice: turn-based chess, online correspondence, correspondence-style, online chess, net-chess.
The terms and conditions of these sites explain acceptable and unacceptable help:
"Immoral and unfair External assistance"The sort of databases that are permitted is specified in some cases:
1) Using computer engines to generate your moves
2) Getting someone else (who may be much stronger) to play ones moves
3) Getting your opponent to artificially resign by pre-agreement
"Moral and fair External assistance"
It is however acceptable and encouraged to use conventional resources which are in the spirit of correspondence chess, such as referencing Opening books (which could be electronic), etc. The use of such resources is considered "research" which has always been an attraction of correspondence chess.
"ChessWorld Terms and Conditions,"http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/termsandconditions.asp
While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.Fritz's infamous rook lift against Vladimir Kramnik must be excised from the database if a player intends to use that collection of games for help during play, and massive databases of games from the Playchess engine room are clearly out of the question. In a forum post on Chess.com, Gonnosuke took issue with the distinction made in RHP's TOS, but in reference to something similar at Chess.com:
"Red Hot Pawn Terms of Service,"http://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php
If you're going to argue against databases, I think you should be arguing against all databases. To allow some but not others is extremely inconsistent when, for all intents and purposes, there's no difference between looking at a high level GM game and an engine game.Chess.com recognizes opening databases as allowable computer assistance.
Gonnosuke, "Databases -- What is Allowed?"http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/databases---what-is-allowed?
You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.These sites offering web based chess at correspondence time controls have not only brought in minions of newbies, they host chess forums where players and other interested chess scholars can debate whether databases should be used, how they might be used effectively, and whether such online play resembles correspondence chess or something entirely different. Many of these debates begin with a question posed by someone who neglected to peruse the terms of membership prior to registration.
"Chess.com Terms of Service,"http://www.chess.com/legal.html#termsofservice
Opposition to Database Use
Many players express the view that use of databases is distinct from putting thought into the game. A chess enthusiast calling herself ChessMom raised this issue stridently on the Red Hot Pawn forums in a thread called "How to learn and not cheat," "you're supposed to play out of your own brain, not somebody else's brain." The thoughtlessness of database use cropped up again in "Nagging Question: Are you for or against the use of Databases, and why?" on Chess.com. Peedee suggested, "[u]sing someone elses [sic] brain for the first 20 moves completely invalidates ANY contest. In fact, getting outside help AT ALL is just nonsense."
Several posters in these threads offer their views that research requires skill.
Every chess player should strive to improve him/herself, and that includes reading and analysing. Correspondence chess gives players a concrete game to study and learn about while playing it. They have the opportunity to play the very best moves they can find by using research techniques.
Fezzik, "Nagging Question"
To what extent are research techniques an element of chess skill? A player calling himself richie_and_oprah brushed aside the relevance of research skills in "Databases -- what is allowed?"
[I]f things come down to who has the better database OR who is the better researcher, how is this a measure of who is better at playing chess?
richie_and_oprah, "Databases"
Another player responded directly that chess players are librarians.
Postal chess is library chess. It's not OTB chess. Moves are researched... in the old days people went to their libraries and periodicals to research moves... and would go to their homecooked prepared lines when they could. So yes, it was in part about who was the better librarian... that's certainly part of the fun of cc. Sadly IMO ICCF rules allow engines, so modern CC is less librarian than ever before, more software engineer.
JG27Pyth, "Databases"
Chess games are compared to math exams where calculators might be permitted, or to open book exams in history class.
The purpose of such exams is to determine what you can infer from the texts, not your ability to memorise them. Correspondence and online chess are similar: we accept that, not being grandmasters, we have not the time to devote to memorising all the games and positions we would like, so we allow databases.
NickYoung5, "Nagging Question"
When I see these threads, I usually offer my view that database use remains one of the principal attractions of correspondence chess. Nevertheless, vocal players continue to insist that such helps seems like cheating, or that it becomes a crutch. Players relying upon outside help are cheating themselves, it is argued.
I would prefer to discuss how effective use of databases might enhance correspondence play. How can research-oriented competition expand enjoyment of the game, personal chess knowledge, and perhaps even make the database user a stronger player in OTB (over the board) play?
Postscript 29 March 2011
The thread "Nagging Question" on Chess.com has been deleted by an administrator. Although there was a bit of personal abuse, there were many excellent comments that also went away as a result of this rash act.
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!
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!
Are you going to keep focussing on this as if it's the reason you're losing games?
nope...id like cc to show who uses a db...or make a seprate game play for people who prefer not to cheat..my question is simple...most players prefer to play pure..if this is a chess site I dont think im being unreasonble..or is this a chess site?
the use of database is stopping players from learning the opening..this I feel is detrimental to chess
frankyyy27 wrote:
the use of database is stopping players from learning the opening..this I feel is detrimental to chess
Is it? Maybe for you.
whats wrong in just playing and learning from ur own mistakes?...ive never cheated..use a book after the game is ok..not my style..but not in play..wtf u people got no morals
yep..me again :)......since when has the opening been dismissed as futile?..why wont supposed better players play me (and many others) pn a level playing field?mmmmm