|
|
|
Topic: Player who follows circle of trust rules.......
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Many people misunderstand the nature of correspondence (these days, server) chess. It never has, nor can it be, of the same nature as over the board play. To begin with, the time constraints are longer. So is the prohibition against moving the pieces around to analyze.
CC has always allowed the use of books but prohibited consultation with other players. Before computers consultation was not really a problem anyway because for the most part chess players are conscious of the pecking order. Stronger players usually won’t give weaker ones the time of day.
Opening books and db’s will only get you so far. Using either one only delays the amount of time before you have to start choosing your own moves…read before you start making mistakes. I have a 2.3 million game db and a recent survey of openings against players rated over 2000 showed we left the db games (i.e. were on our own) after about 12-15 moves. For players under 2000 it was far fewer. So, even following a large db will not help all that much. Databases, properly used, are to research ideas and act as guidelines on how to play certain openings, that’s all.
As for endgame books (or db’s), it’s rare you will find exactly the same position in the book that you are facing in your own game. Even if you do your opponent is unlikely to exactly follow the book’s moves. For example in Fine’s BCE, the section on K&P vs. K&P endings gives a lot of examples and general advice, like positions where one side queens first, one side queens with check, both sides queen, one side capture the P and so forth. These are only examples and if you reach such an ending, you are on your own in figuring out how they apply to your position. Rather like looking up a middlegame example on how to utilize, say, a N outpost. You study the examples, but the application is up to you.
All this is quite different than allowing an engine to select your moves. Even in those cases where an opponent is using an engine, owing to a lot of factors, it is not uncommon for a player to select other than the best move. This is why even in high level CC play where engine use is allowed the strongest players finish with the best scores and somebody loses most of their games. Engine use does not guarantee success against good players.
So in the final analysis utilizing books and databases in CC or server play offers only a minimal advantage because YOU still have the responsibility of selecting what you think is the best move.
This is so even if engines are being used. Suppose there are two moves evaluated very closely, say +0.36 and +0.26. Many players will automatically select the first choice. However, due to the way computers work, a strong player may understand that the second choice is actually the best. Also as GM Shabalov recently pointed out in Chess Life, when evaluating a position it is necessary to have two engines running because in some positions they will give vastly different evaluations. It is then up to the player to select the one he believes best and you have to be a strong player to properly accomplish that task.
|
|
|
| Endgame books? I wouldn't think that would be allowed; I wouldn't think they should be, either. Just an opinion, of course. |
You're thinking of tablebases.
|
|
|
No, I'm thinking of books. You have B and N against king and can't figure out how to win. It's easy, if you use a book.
|
|
|
| No, I'm thinking of books. |
Then they are allowed.
|
| Previous 1 2 |
|
|
|
