chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 game DB makes players not think anymore dang..could we not change that game DB ? i dont know how but that would maybe make playing chess a bit more interesting i guess, stopping people accessing game DB all the time. |
||||||
|
TA |
||||||
|
rookie879 06-Jul-11, 07:43 |
|
||||||
|
the joys of following where others have gone before But as for the GameKnot DB, it is a scary thought that some of the wacky moves I make, based on personal idiosyncracies (such as an attachment to an early Bf4) end up in the GameKnot database guiding others. Some of my most convincing wins -- the ones where you win with an overwhelming material advantage -- have come from getting off book early, parting ways with the grandmasters in following a hunch. And a number of my missed victories -- and the ones most annoying to play, to find moves to survive -- have come from relying too heavily on grandmaster games. Grandmaster games are games where the grandmaster can make strategically unsound moves but still be so strong tactically he can figure out how to survive his own idiocy. Grandmaster games (in databases and in books, 1d4 by GM Boris Avrukh is a prime example) have too often condemned me to unsound lines following a path into a positional ambush, lacking any rationale I can comprehend, other than it's gruesome and it's losing. So if you have the choice between the database and your brain, trust yore brain. |
||||||
|
maca 06-Jul-11, 13:35 |
That said, the GK Database is scarce at best, and many people choose not to use it. Following any database blindly without understand the ideas of the opening also quickly puts you into a position that you do not know how to handle. If you find the use of GK Database annoying, I suggest you to use this for your advantage, and strike the moment it runs out. Regards, MaCa. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 06-Jul-11, 15:16 |
You do have options ... Chess is a game of a nature that it should be inherently honorable since winning by means outside of rules or outside of conditions you agree to holds little satisfaction. A player who is true to himself will find it very disagreable to know he had to conduct his game unacceptibly in order to defeat you. Thus, even tho d-base use is common, lawful conduct & universally accepted as part of the correspondence Chess play, there will be others who also prefer to play a more self-reliant game, and will hold to their honor. If they did not, it should be rather apparent after the game, and you will not wish to play again. But it is like striking gold to find they Did play within the agreed bounds, and you may be able to enjoy many future games together. Perhaps a real rivalry, which can become the most satisfying games to play. ***** The other thing is about d-bases, (or even computer programs). Like Openings Texts, they can be inherently dishonest. And you can "Play against" them. In Postal, one of my main pursuits was finding false assessments in MCO's. Or Improvements, or just a TN. Theorical Novelty. A move you find yourself that is not there. Yet you see no detriment to it & looks to be at least as good as the text moves. Use it an then the other player is on his own thinking resources. At worst,, if you are wrong, he will show you why, and something is learned. But usually it makes a situation like any "first move after Book" where he will have great opportunity for errors. TN's win a lot of games. Improvements win even more lol. So there will be statistical lies in the d-base you can use. Where WT is winning 90%. But lo & behold you look ahead and find the 10% happens to be where a strong player met the line and completely refuted it. And everyone blindly following the Stat is going down hard. Or more enjoyable, look for your own improvement to spring on them. Lacking that, then a TN to play that will take them out of the the d-base. This can be even worse for them than if they were sitting in an otb game and you make the first move they have not seen. Because following a d-base blindly does not even provide a sense of feel to the game, and it is much more as if they suddenly walk into a room to a position they have never seen before and need to figure it All out. I actually Prefered to play someone I know will be following an opening source known to me. Another work intensive approach is to review opp's prior games, as I do. Look for 3 areas in which they display weakness. Eg Bad Knight placements, poor play in Bishop endings, bad handling of Center ... whatever. And just try to steer them to lines emphasizing their weak areas (this is fun. Sort of like how GM's think of a tricky transpositional trap) . Or see if they will go to objectively inferior lines then in order to avoid what they are weak in (or discomforted. Discomforted opponents err much more. If they dislike the position, tho Equal, then you are winning). Often tho opps don't realize what they are weak in, so they just play into things dangerous to them. Just my thoughts. Regards |
||||||
|
Option Number Z <"Another work intensive approach is to review opp's prior games, as I do. Look for 3 areas in which they display weakness. Eg Bad Knight placements, poor play in Bishop endings, bad handling of Center ... whatever. And just try to steer them to lines emphasizing their weak areas (this is fun. Sort of like how GM's think of a tricky transpositional trap). "Or see if they will go to objectively inferior lines then in order to avoid what they are weak in (or discomforted. Discomforted opponents err much more. If they dislike the position, tho Equal, then you are winning). Often tho opps don't realize what they are weak in, so they just play into things dangerous to them." > . . . sounds great, directing and controlling the game play. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 06-Jul-11, 15:37 |
Here's an example i just thought of ... WT always has a wonderful game where it is very difficult for someone below perhaps 1800 ish to play the Black side without falling into the positional pitfalls is has, and overcome them. Backward pawn, King that can't castle, awkward piece coordination, etc. Wins virtually every game in blitz, for White. EXCEPT ... unfortunately there is one particular line from that MCO, for Black, that White is just worse. And stays worse. And Black can force that line. Makes it not worth playing the variation as white in a serious game. Now if that was on a database, and someone looks at stats ... Imagine what happens the first time someone plays the MCO-12 line, blowing the stat validity to kingdom come. (Because it was not something that i saw in any other souce i had. So quite likely many games could be played without the best by Black. And yet unplayable for WT once revealed.) D-base followers are often very damaged by surprises. Say a new Improvement from a GM game appears. Ouch. Or a volatile opening like the Dragon was, where assessments could flip flop several times during a corr game. Volatile openings are great vs d-base followers too. A player has to be Thinking ahead, not just following, to survive. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 06-Jul-11, 16:28 |
Shamash Perhaps its a character flaw? lol. As they say someone of placid nature may try to turn into Tal on the Chess board. A spontaneous person tries for Machiavellian manipulations & control in a Chess game ?! |
||||||
|
hillarious how kasparov playes that he is shocked |
||||||
|
ditto.... Most of what you guys just mentioned,is exactly what I have stressed time and time again,including this string.Reviewing opponents past games...i've constantly stressed that many,many times.And whether your opponent is using a DB or not,you can with alittle experience and the right "opening variation"move the game yourself out of a DB with a simple pawn or king move or double king move with some loss of tempo.So,it dosen't matter what your opponent wants to do,you can force his DB hand very easily and destroy his DB fixation!Again some trompowsky variations or Basmans can do that trick easily,even if your opponent is a strict DB player.Yes,you can try that on a Ruy Lopez,for eample,but moving out of DB in more well know and centuries old heavily analyzed game variations like the Ruy,is not as easy or can be more problematic in better well known lines that suddenly change(by the opponent forcing the change)rather than a variation like the Sokolosky,Basman or Tromp that has not been quite as heavily researched and has more obscurities and offset side tributaries that have seldom or never been thoroughly researched. On the level that beorn_nl plays on,it really is actually sometimes easier to play some opening like perhaps.....1.b4,b5 2.h3,h6(which even from there is probably out of DB) and not suffer any bad move disadvantage for either side since the skill level to take advantage of the weak out of the shoot moves will not be as pronounced at the 1380 rating levels.Plus it gives beorn some tactical and positional experience in games of the "unknown"...which,i think is what he is really wanting anyway from his initial post in this string!! And while weaker,do not forget some other eccentric games like my sodium attack games which I posted and have beaten players higher than 1700 ratings.I mean,come on now.... 1.Na3,e5 2.Nh3,d5 3.b3 I haven't checked,but how many databases already have no answer for that?And if they do,its very easy to plug in something else like an f3 move and still be relatively and moderately strong with only a slight disavantage of less than one positional pawn value!!!And as to finding improvements like baron says...the fight then can become improving yourself to an advantage(like I do)in an apparent WEAK opening like the sodium attack!See? And that is one of the keys to then improving yourself in positional and tactical experience as the opening "underdog" with these oddball,flank or out of the mainstream openings! By the way....do you know one of the worse responses as black to my sodium attack that will give me an advantage(by midgame) that most blitz players do?They go..... 1.Na3,e5 2.Nh3,d5 and then whatever my 3rd move is,usually go in and take BOTH my Knights still on a3 and h3 with both of their Bishops...doubling my pawns on the a and h file.This gives me strength,not weakness!Why?because I know how to utilize the open or half open b and g file with my Rooks to an advantage.Most players think that doubled pawns are a weakness and thats not necessarily true in the opening,even if it is on both sides of the board!Check my "doubled pawns"post a while back...its like probably on page 7 or 8 in the forums. So moving out of DB is easy and i do it constantly,EXCEPT when i'm trying to get into 14th place again on the list!Man,the draws are killing me right now! Best, TA |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
nathanman22 13-Jul-11, 12:51 |
I don't use it |
||||||
|
thnx nathan i'll love 2 play with u sometime loved story about the cheating chessmachine The Turk en.wikipedia.org and 2 see how old this game realy is... The game's present form emerged in Europe during the second half of the 15th century Maybe i just went one bridge 2 far now lol |
||||||
|
Maybe I will invite both of you into the deep dark reaches of the tactical abyss one day,so be prepared for the journey of no return!Ha ha. And do not worry,I will promise no DB usage with me whatsoever. Best, TA |
||||||
|
shamash 14-Jul-11, 05:45 |
Deleted by shamash on 14-Jul-11, 05:46.
|
||||||
|
Game DB helps players think more -- not less An outlook also voiced by Sir William Templeton, and then by Jonathan Swift. Liverpool chess master Gerald Abrahams writes in THE CHESS MIND that at the chessboard a move is not created, it is found. It is found by thinking. It is found by standing on the shoulders of giants. You cannot say that by consulting the moves -- and therefore, implicitly, the ideas behind the moves -- one is not thinking. Thinking expands an idea by building on what has gone before. By standing on the shoulders of giants. By standing on the shoulders of grandmasters --, and, occasionally, seeing further. As I have, occasionally, in my games. Not by copying moves slavishly. But by extending the ideas of the moves that I find. Ideas from the moves of those giants who have gone before. And finding and seeing and playing those new ideas feels wonderful. |
||||||
|
nathanman22 14-Jul-11, 08:15 |
Shamash We can agree to disagree. -Nathan |
||||||
|
thinking creatively in chess as a distinct topic from playing a game of chess <"game DB makes players not think anymore"> Naturally there is a difference between thinking, which I am talking about, which involves discovering new moves, and playing, which is your sole concern. |
||||||
|
nathanman22 14-Jul-11, 09:31 |
Question |
||||||
|
blinding the brain or finding ideas that refresh your chess In chess, that would wipe out (among others) Nimzovich, Reti, Tarrasch, Capablanca, Tartakower, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Euwe, Lipnitsky, Smyslov, Pachman, Fischer, Kasparov, Nunn, Timman, Marovic, Khalifman, Gelfand, Shirov, Kramnik, Bologan, Morozovich, and Anand. In the search for the next move, am not talking about copying moves from a database. Because winning chess is not about finding the best next move, but the best line, the best sequence of moves, the best plan, the best idea, the best sequencing of targets. So it makes sense in finding the best line, to look at the ideas behind the book lines, behind the lines that have been experimented with, to puzzle out their foundations, their ideas -- the chessboard hopes and dreams of the men and women who played them. Including the lines that failed. Because a line can fail because of a wrong turn in the road, because of a wrong direction taken, or a tactical lapse: not because the strategic idea is faulty or the destination wrong. Perhaps if you think of the utilization of a database as your preparation for a game, you might be more inclined to embrace it as a tool for better and more creative chess games -- and chess ideas to bring something fresh & new, even novel, in engaging your opponent. |
||||||
|
nathanman22 14-Jul-11, 12:25 |
i suppose |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 14-Jul-11, 12:25 |
It really depends, doesnt it ? .... Or they can become a comparative shopper instead, looking ahead to the outcomes of thoses moves and making an assessement of that position, and so determine Which of the d-base lines should be tried to steer for. As GM's bandy transpositions in similar fashion, trying to pull a One-Up on their opponent. That is what it is ... thinking transpositionally if one is crossing columns to excavate their moves. The Copier has a lower and lesser thought utilization than a player alone. An Improver is definately thinking tho, like a lone player does, but probably examining more moves with d-base. And the last, our shopper, may use a much expanded and more complex thinking than player alone .... assuming the MCO in his head is not as large as the one on paper. And if the MCO in a player's head is really quite a small one, then a d-base may give them their first chance to Try to think transpositionally. I always found the biggest thrill in Corr to be trying to play a GM quality game, with the extra tools this version of Chess provides. And if you get close in quality (or not), you can pick a GM to game study, then try to become so familiar with their play that You can Make A Tal Move too; or Petrosian; whoever. Building in a bit of S-t-y-l-e. }8-D |
||||||
|
Perhaps if you think of the utilization of a database as your preparation for a game, ... So u are allowed to study your opening books i guess or use a good chess games such as fritz and grandmaster chess to learn your opening moves or analyse your games. i bet lots of websites u could use to study them too and learn. maybe the best answer to my initial question should be its correspondence chess but the issue here is off course that the Dbase is too advanced and too quick in answer possible moves not opening books that's different, so that could lead to blind copy behaviour, maybe better to study books as in the old days, i think lol u may call me old fashioned, but hey that's me |
||||||
|
maca 15-Jul-11, 09:20 |
This, of course, doesn't mean that my opening play wouldn't involve any personal thought. Quite the contrary, it involves a lot of thought, because I continually evaluate the different variations that the DB offers, and try to determine why some of them appear to be statistically good, and others appear to be bad. Because just as Shamash suggested, it's not really about whether the immediate, next move is good or bad; it's whether the variation provides you with opportunities that you're able to utilize in the future (unfortunately, I'm not quite ready to try to find the 'best' line at all times; oftentimes, I must settle with a 'good' one ). And ultimately, I always choose the option that seems to lead into positions that I feel the most comfortable, not the one that has the best statistical results. In contrast, playing the opening based on the DB percentages alone is probably one of the most efficient ways to lose a game of correspondence chess. Regards, MaCa. |
||||||
|
And even then, I often find I should have started analysing sooner ! I tend to think of the move that I would like to play first, and then just check the DB that the move I have picked is not an absolute lemon. |
||||||
|
thereaper1 16-Jul-11, 20:31 |
Being a non paying member (for the time being) I can only look at the first 7 moves int the games database. As I only occasionally use it for openings this doesn't really effect me too much. See when ever I play I will think about the move I will play and if I am unfammiler with the opening I will then check the database tosee what is mainline. Sometimes when I do this I find that my move is completly different from almost all the other games where the position has occured, when this happens I will look more carefully at the variations and find out why my move is not mainline before deciding weather to stick with my initial thoughts or follow mainline or the majourity. On the occasions I do use the DB I will always take pains to figure out why the moves were made and what the purpose behind them is. Of course if there is only acouple of games with the position in the DB then I will see what they are but I wont bother using them even is they score near perfectly. |
||||||
|
Tarrasch... "Having hitherto followed theory developed over decades of Master play and study, White now makes a fatal mistake: he uses his own head." I have to admit to using databases quite a bit. Why? Fact is, I've always had problems with the opening. There are a few I know well, but combined with a natural weakness there and being 'out of the loop' for more than 20 years as well, I do find myself in an awkward position. Some of my favorite openings I'm starting to find problematically playable at best. At that, I'm not so much seeking an advantage, merely a viable game as the middlegame approaches. I'm not always successful even in that. I didn't know, for instance, until recently that the Ulvestad line in the Two Knights was quite as unplayable as was demonstrated to me some months ago... Mind you, my recent game against jstevens1 (which she has annotated), was a departure. Who knew there was such an animal as the Pirc-Lissitsyn Gambit (1.Nf3 f5 2.e4?!)? Cheers, Ion |
||||||
|
On my level I would definitely LOSE more games using that DB.This is my opinion,but what do I know?Ha ha! TA |
||||||
|
i go over hundreds of recent games to database'. You have to go over the games to understand the variation. For instance in a recent game my opponent played a goring gambit against me. So i look up the scotch game on wikipedia and found this among other things.... (4...d5 Black can equalise by transposing to the Danish declined with 4...d5, when the critical line runs 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 (or 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4, leading to the same position), often referred to as the Capablanca Variation in view of the strength of Black's concept in the game Marshall-Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong 1926.[4] This line (which can also arise from the Chigorin Defense to the Queen's Gambit),[5] forcing White to either exchange queens or forgo the right to castle with the risky 10.Be3, deters many players from employing this gambit. Equal endgames result after either 10.Qb3 Qxb3 11.axb3 Nge7 or 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe2+ Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 Ne7. White can deviate with 6...Bg4 7.Nc3, with the idea of meeting 7...Bb4 with 8.a3 (or 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.a3)[6] or the rare 5.Bd3,[7] neither of which promise an advantage but which avoid those endings.) so i looked up the reference to the lake hopatcong game and this is it';www.chessgames.com; you need a plug in to view this game is on www.chessgames.com. Anyway this gave me a way to equalize as black.(my opponent at the time was 2227 ) My opponent though had not prepared for this line,had not seen this Master game.(marshall vs Capablanca),He veered from this line and i had him...;  game preparation and study is essential to success on GK. as to databases,they are tricky to use and dangerous to rely on.I prefere game databases and books...BC |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
