Using Books & Databases for Playing Turn Based.

Tr4mpldUndrfooT wrote:

I give 100% credit to correspondense here for my improvements. I learn NOTHING on fast games, but with my knowledge from turn based games and the help of my books I do improve greatly that I CAN play live games much better. What's the difference between people memorizing a book or using it? You have to memorize it somehow.

 EXACTLY!!!  I agree 100%, and this is why I DO use opening databases.

It is and it has always been legal to use  books and databases in correspondence chess. Also, for those of us who play on the board, live chess, competitively, correspondence chess has always been perceived exactly as a way to deepen one's knowledge of theory, like, say, in lab experiences. It doesn't hurt the honesty of the game and I suggest people use this as a way to learn and get more pleasure out of the game. But of course if you only copy moves without THINKING about them and understand their reasons you learn nothing and probably will lose the game.

What is not fair, not acceptable and dishonest is to use chess engines (Fritz, Hiarcs, Shredder, Chessmaster etc) to analize positions. That is not acceptable in any for of chess.

I don't use books or databases for my games here because unfortunately I don't have enough time and also because I prefer to use chess.com turn based chess games as a way to test the openings I already use, my (very) limited repertoire. So this site for me is like a place to exercise my openings and not much to learn new lines. But I don't mind and I even encourage my opponents to use books and databases.

davidfmendes wrote:

 But of course if you only copy moves without THINKING about them and understand their reasons you learn nothing and probably will lose the game.

AMEN!!!  As someone else said in a different thread, if you use the databases as a crutch, someone will take that crutch and beat you over the head with it.

Before I comment on this issue, I'd like to make it clear that I don't have any database or books to rely upon for turn-based games. And yes, it does annoy me when I am playing against someone rated 1300 churning out book moves till we reach 30th move by which time they are usually +1 or +2 , which with careful technique can be converted to a full win even if the database is left behind.

    But the entire point of a database is to assist you into making possibly the best moves in the given position. Some people get around that by using exchange sacrifices to get positional advantage which are hard for databases and computers to assess. [of course you need to be a good positional player yourself to carry it out precisely] But then for players like me who are not so well-developed in strategic nuances, I find it better to just play simple no nonsense moves, without making blunders. that way you can test out your favourite opening for an OTB tournament. Your gambits may fail but that's the whole point of correspondence games - to test the validity of a particular novelty or an entire opening [without risking your actual OTB rating].

  livechess is just for fun..while turn-based is for serious study. Once you grasp that concept then no one would really be bothered about rating differences in different modes  of time controls.

How about those who play correspondence chess exclusively? I do not view turn based chess as practice or study for OTB chess, it is an end in itself. To me, the books and databases are part of the game that I play. I expect my opponent to be using all the resources at his disposal to defeat me. If my opponent chooses not to use those resources out of some mistaken sense of ethics or fair play or because he wants turn based chess to be practice for OTB chess then he has only himself to blame for any disadvantage he accrues.

I think if you take chess seriously as some of us do, our live chess games are for fun or testing out new opening ideas to see what positions arise.  One reason that live chess ratings aren't as high is because most of us who care about correspondence ratings don't take live chess seriously at all.  If people on the live chess wanted to play one or two hour time controls I might take it more seriously. I've never read anything saying that a 10 minute chess game accurately displays a players chess skill.  I'm trying to get better because I want to play in real tournaments again soon.  I think there are others here who are like me.  With or without help correspondence is much better for this kind of study.  I use an opening book and sometimes check the opening database.  If both people are using the resources available on the Internet it hardly matters what books you have.  The idea is that you are always getting your opponents absolute best game.  This can never happen in live chess. 

Another big difference between live chess and correspondence is that the difference between my best and worst game is quite drastic.  In live chess I generally play near my worst.  In correspondence I play above my average ability to the best of my ability.  So of course their would be a discrepency in the rating.

Anthony

I think at the end of the day..

If you win a game just based on your own skill, you will gain much more pleasure than winning with help.

And you will learn just as much not more by exercising your own brain to sort things out, and not that of a database.

I agree with you play Chess from the head I stopped playing serious CC Chess and Internet Chess entirely because there's no way to prevent opponents from using Fritz, engine blunder checkers, databases or consulting/paying stronger Chess Players for advice.

It's an enormous waste of time why I play only at the Cafe or Chess Club.

Lob who opened this discussion also asked was it fair to use books, databases etc. It depends when you are using these aids. If you was using these whilst  a game was in progress, i would consider this without doubt, to be unfair. You wouldnt do this if we were sat face to face otb.

If you wish to improve your game, study when you are not in a game or when it has no relevence to the game you are playing.

I learn by my mistakes (sometimes) and some of my most enjoyable games are the ones i have lost and my real sense of achievment comes when i beat a player, knowing i have had no help at all to do this

I think if you tried it you would find that it's not what you think it is.  It's very closed minded to assume that you don't learn from making opening moves you don't see yourself.  It doesn't help beyond the beginning of the game and it just doesn't work the way you're talking about it.  Rarely are the positions you achieve identical to the book openings.  It really is only helpful as a guide. Left to your own devises you will continue to make the same mistakes forever and never learn anything.  I couldn't disagree with you more.

Anthony

Yes but Anthony, if it is not in my comfort zone to use more than my own mind against a chess player is that so bad?

I still study openings of course, I do it on a  physical board by myself or with my mentor. As will I study other areas of the game,

But to me - a real game of chess is where you put into practice what YOU know, what is in YOUR mind, what YOU have learned and not what an all knowing computer knows..

Can't you see my view?

I see where you are coming from.  If you think of Chess.com as a place to learn and not necesarily a place to practice it hardly matters.  It's not real practice in correspondence chess anyhow because you don't know your opponent's level of commitment to that particular game.  OTB you can see them and you know that you're playing for the same reason that they are especially in a tournament.  I don't have a mentor or a chess club.  I must learn by putting into practice the things I study.  I don't seperate my study from the games I play here.  I'm getting better rapidly right now so I don't think there's any reason to say that this doesn't work.  Maybe soon I will reach a plateau and need to find a better way.  My point is that there is no reason to make arbitrary rules for yourself concerning correspondence chess.  Just play within the rules and see if you get something out of it.  I did and still do.  

By the way I probably only use the database once in every ten games or so.  and I think I use my book about the same frequency.  I generally only use it if my opponent knows, for a fact, I'm using it.  Most of my opponents are here to learn also so they are not offended because they want me to be as competitive as I am capable.

Anthony

It has been nice debating with you Anthony, I see your view too. I have a chesss club now, I think this spurs me on to play OTB style because it is so amazing and I love it!

I will continue to study, store in my mind - and then try it out. This makes me more comfortable.

To each his/her own my friend

Sounds good to me.

LOB wrote:

I still study openings of course, I do it on a  physical board by myself or with my mentor. As will I study other areas of the game,

But to me - a real game of chess is where you put into practice what YOU know, what is in YOUR mind, what YOU have learned and not what an all knowing computer knows..

 There is no computer that I would call "all knowing."

You say that you have a mentor.  I do not.  Does that give you an "unfair advantage?"  Or have you simply taken the time to access a resource that I have not?

I completely understand the viewpoint of those who choose not to use online resources to help them.  However, as long as I'm not breaking any rules, I will use any tool that is made available to me to improve my game.

It certainly is not being original, that's for sure.

While it's all well and good to study grandmaster games in your free time - using databases during a match shows nothing of what you actually know about chess in the game.

If I wanted to play against a grandmaster, I would go and seek out Kasparov for a match - but I don't, I want to play against YOU. If you use a GM database to play for you, you really aren't playing - just kind of coasting through, and not showing or improving your skill (improving your rating perhaps, but then again, that would not be an accurate reflection of your abilities and understanding of chess).

Oh, and AquaMan, that group you refer to doesn't only still exist - it thrives. It is called the Circle of Trust OTB, of which I am a proud member. No cheating, no databases, no fuss - just good, honest people playing a good, honest game.

Well said Tijaro, you put it better that I coould have myself.

There are, in my opinion more efficent ways to learn.

I wonder do people feel:

"Well my opponent is probably using one so I am going to use it back."

?

Working out my lines (with books and databases) is the only reason I play online...otherwise I would only play OTB which I much prefer anyway.

Guess the lure of playing people from all over the globe is part of it also #:)

Tijaro wrote: If I wanted to play against a grandmaster, I would go and seek out Kasparov for a match - but I don't, I want to play against YOU. If you use a GM database to play for you, you really aren't playing - just kind of coasting through, and not showing or improving your skill (improving your rating perhaps, but then again, that would not be an accurate reflection of your abilities and understanding of chess).

That's not neccesarily true.  See the above post about beating someone in the head with their crutch.  I use more than one database, so I guarantee that any move I make is being made by me - based on my own research, observations, experiences, and conclusions.  If I were merely making the move I was "told" to make, I would expect to get beaten over the head - and I would deserve it.  Books on openings and online databases should be used as a reference tool, not a crutch or surrogate brain.

I actually prefer my opponent to use a database or book because I don't learn as much when they immediately get out of book.  Either way, at some point the database help is over and your playing strength must come through.