| From | Message |
|---|
donfernando
24-Oct-12, 08:25
|
 unfair game database
|
blake78613
24-Oct-12, 09:28
|
|
blake78613
24-Oct-12, 09:36
|
It is fair to play the whole game following a database, but it is not very bright if you are playing for a win. It is folly to play a move you don't understand because it is in the database. White should aim to get out of the data base after about 12 moves. I see no problem following a database as long as you can if you are Black (provided you understand the moves). In General, Black is satisfied with a draw; and the burden is on White to break with the database if he is playing for a win. If you are playing Black and looking for a win, you need to get out of the database fairly quickly. I would also point out that the only way a game can follow the database for a long time, is if both players are following it.
|
donfernando
24-Oct-12, 13:59
|
to blake78613
Thank you for your opinion. What about the fact of searching for finals position equal or similar to the game you are actually playing, looking for ideas
|
|
As far as what is legal:
gameknot.com
Chess books and game/move databases are allowed (as they are permitted in correspondence chess too), with the exception of endgame tablebases. Nalimov endgame tablebases, or any other books/programs/tools that show the exact moves to make for a guaranteed win/draw from a given position on the board, are not permitted.
|
donfernando
24-Oct-12, 21:06
|
to sccadams
thank you for your support
but how can a database is allowed, but not a book that show the exact move to win/draw???
|
blake78613
25-Oct-12, 06:39
|
That is a good observation donfernando. I would like for gameknot to give an example of an illegal book. A beginner's book on chess will show the exact move to mate if you happen to get the exact position in the book.
|
|
I expect that databases are allowed because there is no real way to stop players using them - if you ban them, players who abide by the ban will be at a disadvantage over players who ignore it and use them. As Blake says. it is pointless to make moves because the book/database says so without understanding why the move is suggested. Anyway, even reputable openings books get it wrong sometimes. The position after these was evaluated in NCO as favourable for White after a win by Emms
1 e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 g6
6.Bc4 Bg7
7.0-0 0-0
8.Re1 Nc6
9. h3 Bd7
10. Bg5 Nxd4
11 Qxd4 h6
12.Bd2 Ng4
13.Qd3 Ne5
14.Qe2
But there is a flaw in that assessment. Black can rapidly get a good position after
14.. Bxh3
So don't always believe what you read in openings books - McShane did, and he lost to Hansen without Hansen having to work too hard for the point. I have seen the same line in the Dutch evaluated as a draw in one book,and winning for White in another, so ask why the author gives his evaluation - you will probably agree, but sometimes you just won't like the position given as good by the book. If you do get a position like that, then don't play it
|
|
I believe that databases are legal, whereas endgame tables are not simply because databases do not tell you how to win. They merely tell you what other players have played. Endgame tables tell you what moves to make to win the game given certain piece positions, and guarantee a win or draw if the moves given by the table are followed. Now contrast that with databases, where your opponent can choose to move out of the database at any time.
|
tactical_abyss
04-Nov-12, 10:37
|
Fischer on opening theory/databases....
Modern databases have really changed the course of chess history over the years,for sure.They are here to stay,whether you get them online,from a software disc or from many chess books on the market.There is a utube video with Bobby Fischer talking about the pro's and cons of opening chess theory.He can actually be quoted as saying chess is a joke nowdays,its all memorization for the opening advantage and even a young kid of today that has memorized many of the better opening line database theories might even defeat Morphy or Casablanca if they could suddenly find a way to play him(perhaps a time capsule)armed with the modern databases of today,where the chess greats of the past,did not have any of the opening theory of today.
There is a video on Utube with Fischers comments.As of now,I copied the link,but it does not transfer properly to the GK forum,unfortunately.You can find it under "Bobby Fischer tells you why chess is boring and tells you his favorite players."Check on utube,to find it yourself.
Check out the video on Utube and especially listen to the video not only from the beginning,but from the 4 minute marker.Now,i'm not saying that I agree with his thoughts,i'm being objective,but there is some truth in what he does say that sides with both type of players that are for and against opening database usage(or opening theory)as the wording can be interchanged....
It is true however,that any player that has done his homework and is armed with the most up to date cutting edge opening theory databases(way beyond what GK offers) and has memorized or has written down some of the best opening database games played by past GM's and masters and follows through in his game repertoire with these weapons....and combines this with,of course,a bit of knowledge of some basic tactics and positional play beyond the 25 to 30 move opening book,can truly have an advantage over an unprepared opponent.
So,in reality many,many games are WON on who actually possesses and properly utilizes the BETTER opening book,not necessarily because the player is simply "better"at just tactics or positional play.I have seen masters already beaten by 1800 rated players at the Marshall Club in NYC simply because they had armed themselves with some razor sharp new line they memorized out of chess life magazine and the master had his title,but did not "keep up"with every opening line and was taken by surprise.It happens,believe me!
|
tisamon
04-Nov-12, 10:52
|
That's part of the reason I enjoy Fischer Random 960 - you're on your own to sink or swim right from move 1. Of course, to make it fair, you have to play two games (one white, one black) in case of any initial advantages. My play greatly improved from playing the occasional game - you have to have your plan in place right from the first move. The only problem though, is that you can stare at the initial position for hours as you mentally chase down all sorts of possible plans, lol.
|
tactical_abyss
04-Nov-12, 11:47
|
Yes,tisamon.And for the very reasons mentioned above,this is why Fischer invented and advocated the Random 960.I have played it at the Marshall quite frequently and have pared well even against some 2600+players.Don't forget the other variants if you haven't tried them yet,like....
1.Chess 480
2.Chess 256
3.Double fischer random chess
4.Moab random chess
5.Shuffle Chess
Basically I will stick to the 960 and the 480,but the others appear interesting.
I have the star trek 3d board as well,and those games can get even more complicated than the variants above.I bring that one out at Christmas time to play opponents in the club.
But yes,that is one way to avoid opening theory.Unfortunately it will never be recognized on the most elite major tourney world championship matches.Perhaps it should be,however?
|
tisamon
04-Nov-12, 11:57
|
I think part of the reason it will never be seen is that the initial positions don't have that harmony between the pieces that classic chess does, where every piece's initial position furthers the classic strategy. (Gotta love when you get a game with the bishops/queens facing off in the corners right away, or an awkward knight). The other reason I think it won't be as popular is because there is no opening theory. Now, opening goals definitely can be applied quite successfully, but I imagine it must be very difficult to analyse/dissect the opening play during/after a game - there are no lines established from 100s of years of master experience, and computers (as far as I know) are notoriously weak for opening strategy without built in databases. But... on the flipside for 960 there is plenty of room for creativity and enterprising play.
I'm not too familiar with the other variations you've listed... I may have to look those up.
|
tactical_abyss
04-Nov-12, 12:52
|
I once played my own variant where the pawns on either side could move or capture in ANY direction,but only still move one square at a time,except in the opening where it can advance 2 squares.So you could march your own pawns as white for example,backwards from the 7th rank,back to the 2nd or even the first rank!It actually became quite complex at times and twisted your mind into all kinds of distortions.
And yes,I agree,with the 960,there is not much opening theory,except where the randomness repeats itself in the setup and you have some memory tricks from a past game.And yes,computers are notoriously weak in such games.Fischer knew what he was doing when he thought up the 960.
I myself,have been thinking up a chess board with perhaps 2 or 3 more ADDITIONAL files with new types of pieces that can move differently,perhaps like two diagonals to the left or right and then capture to the left or right.Why limit the game to 32 pieces?Lets change history.Yes,there are games with multiple players and large boards,but not any new "differently" moving type of pieces that I know of.
|
blake78613
04-Nov-12, 19:20
|
www.youtube.com
|
tactical_abyss
05-Nov-12, 02:14
|
Yes,blake,I was also aware of the Seirawan chess variant,but my idea would involve,say,up to 2 more pieces on both sides(like the elephant and bird on the a1,b1 files and another elephant and bird on the k1 and L1 files,then have 4 more pawns total on the a2,b2,K2,L2 rank and file squares).So that would be a larger board with 12 files!Seirawans idea does involve 2 more pieces,replacing pieces after movement,ect. but on the same 64 square board.My idea would create a total of 8 more additional pieces and a total of 96 squares!So,for example,the white Rook would now be on the c1 square in the opening position and the white Knight would be on d1 square in the opening position.The other white Knight and Rook then would be on the i1 and j1 rank and files.Algebraic notation would have to be modified(in the thinking process only).Yes,it can be done.But exactly "how"those 2 new pieces move,well,thats not in stone yet,nor would they necessarily be a Bird and Elephant like Seirawan suggested.
I'll build one one day,take a photo of it an post it in my profile!
It might go over like a lead balloon,but then maybe not,but its my board either way!
|
thereaper1
07-Nov-12, 23:28
|
I've seen a chess 960 position that I'm sure would give white a massive advantage from the opening
|
|
That is why most Chess 960 matches have the players take command of both sides.
|
