Any evidence for improvement with databases?
Dave (from the UK)
chess?
The Russians have done pretty well at chess, yet during the cold war,
the availability of computers in Russia was severely restricted.
Someone stated to me that:
"And it is much more difficult to improve without a database, especially
if you don't have a coach."
Again, is there any evidence of this?
I'm updating some information about the free chess database ChessDB
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/
and would like some evidence that chess databases in general result in
an improvement of ones chess. Unlike ChessBase, who make stupid claims like:
>> Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next
door.
(see http://www.chessbase.com/shop/product.asp?pid=211&user=&coin= if
you don't believe me the **** they talk)
I'd like to back some of this up. Has there been any serious study into
the effect databases have on one's chess? I can well imagine that could
be a subject of a PhD.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
Dave (from the UK)
now.
Perhaps if anyone would wants to reply to the comment, it would be
better if they reply under this, as it is cross-posted.
Antonio Torrecillas
> Is there any *hard* evidence that computer Chess databases improve one's
> chess?
Databases can help you the study of several aspects:
1) Openings research.
It's easier to study a concrete line knowing what happened in played
games not only as usefuol examples but also as evidence os research of
concrete players.
2) Endings study.
From practical ending we can undertand better some aspects od endgame
play. And from concrete stititics we can evaluate better some concrete
endings.
3) Middlegame study.
If you are interested in a concrete theme (as example fight 3 pieces vs
3 rooks) you can obtain many examples and ideas from databases.
But that do not mean databases have no problems:
- Some people devote more time to ramdom visits to his database than to
serious study.
- Some people devote more time to add games to his database than to
serious study.
...
But generaly the problem is in the user not in the tool
> The Russians have done pretty well at chess, yet during the cold war,
> the availability of computers in Russia was severely restricted.
>
> Someone stated to me that:
>
> "And it is much more difficult to improve without a database, especially
> if you don't have a coach."
Of course a coach can be very useful and a coach with a complete
database devoted to teach can be more useful.
Antonio
Antonio Torrecillas
> En/na Dave (from the UK) ha escrit:
>
>> Is there any *hard* evidence that computer Chess databases improve
>> one's chess?
A similar question can be asked for chess engines.
:-)
Johnny T
> I'd like to back some of this up. Has there been any serious study into
> the effect databases have on one's chess? I can well imagine that could
> be a subject of a PhD.
You are never going to get a "control" group together, or create a
double blind study of non-users or users of bad data.
At the grandmaster level, they use it period. At lower levels you will
never be able to filter out for talent or training.
So, I think your PHD study will be non-existent.
There is a truth that at the match level at the highest levels, players
prepare against each other, and database work is a part of that
preparations. For trainers, use of database work to investigate things
like opening theory are useful. For writers of opening books for
computers.
Sometimes it is sort of basically obvious that some tools are basically
suited for a job at hand.
What I suspect you are asking, is just rummaging around a database
useful for plastic-pieces joe. Who knows, who cares. They enjoy it or
don't. But if you have a specific task you are doing, of course it
helps, why wouldn't it?
Mark Houlsby
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I should have sent this to rec.games.chess.computer too, so are doing so
> now.
>
> Perhaps if anyone would wants to reply to the comment, it would be
> better if they reply under this, as it is cross-posted.
>
> Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> Is there any *hard* evidence that computer Chess databases improve one's
> chess?
>
Some, no doubt. Is it meaningful? Probably not.
Reading books is good.
> The Russians have done pretty well at chess, yet during the cold war,
> the availability of computers in Russia was severely restricted.
>
> Someone stated to me that:
>
> "And it is much more difficult to improve without a database, especially
> if you don't have a coach."
>
> Again, is there any evidence of this?
>
Sure, but it's bound not to be conclusive. Databases haven't been
around long enough for that to happen. Neither, for that matter, have
computers....
> I'm updating some information about the free chess database ChessDB
>
> http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/
>
> and would like some evidence that chess databases in general result in
> an improvement of ones chess. Unlike ChessBase, who make stupid claims
> like:
>
> >> Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the
>
> >> amateur next door.
>
Ummm.... they're trying to sell the program. Whatcha gonna do... report
them to advertising standards?
> (see http://www.chessbase.com/shop/product.asp?pid=211&user=&coin= if
> you don't believe me the **** they talk)
>
It's ridiculous to suggest "...everyone..." certainly, but it's not
"****" to suggest that many class players and probably most GMs use
their software. Whether the software is being used *effectively* is
another question entirely.
Whether it's being used *as effectively as possible* is still another
question.
> I'd like to back some of this up. Has there been any serious study into
> the effect databases have on one's chess? I can well imagine that could
> be a subject of a PhD.
>
No chance.
Where would one find data? Who could supervise the Ph.D.? Who could
mark it?
Mark (from the UK)
David Richerby
> Someone stated to me that:
>
> "And it is much more difficult to improve without a database,
> especially if you don't have a coach."
>
> Again, is there any evidence of this?
Well, I don't know about ``much more difficult to improve'' but I, as
a pretty weak player (106BCF) find databases very useful as a means of
finding a collection of games in an opening I might be interested in.
This lets me see what the general plans are in the openings: whizz
through thirty or forty games at a couple of seconds a move and you
soon see whether you should be aiming for a kingside attack, queenside
space advantage or whatever.
>>> Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the
>>> amateur next door.
>
> (see http://www.chessbase.com/shop/product.asp?pid=211&user=&coin= if
> you don't believe me the **** they talk)
Well, the World Champion almost certainly uses ChessBase. There are
plenty of amateurs who use it (otherwise, the software wouldn't be
commercially viable). And while it's not true to say that literally
everybody uses it, that's fairly standard marketing speak for ``people
of a wide range of abilities use ChessBase''.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Microsoft.com (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an E-commerce portal that's
really hard to use but it doesn't work
in the dark!
David Richerby
> Databases can help you the study of several aspects:
>
>
> If you are interested in a concrete theme (as example fight 3 pieces
> vs 3 rooks) you can obtain many examples and ideas from databases.
That sounds like a pretty specialized case. Three pieces vs two rooks
might be a little more common. ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Mouldy Ghost (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a haunting spirit but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and full
of holes!
Antonio Torrecillas
> Antonio Torrecillas <ator...@xtec.net> wrote:
>
>>Databases can help you the study of several aspects:
>>
>>3) Middlegame study.
>>
>>If you are interested in a concrete theme (as example fight 3 pieces
>>vs 3 rooks) you can obtain many examples and ideas from databases.
>
>
> That sounds like a pretty specialized case. Three pieces vs two rooks
> might be a little more common. ;-)
>
> Dave.
I'm sorry, ... typo error :-)
I wrote that concrete example because I studied it not log ago.
AT
Ange1o DePa1ma
"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-s...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk>
wrote in message news:458d...@212.67.96.135...
>I should have sent this to rec.games.chess.computer too, so are doing so
>now.
> Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> Is there any *hard* evidence that computer Chess databases improve one's
> chess?
Sorry for losing the original post.
The database question comes down to whether it's easier to study and prepare
from paper notes or from electronic compilations of games, openings, and
positions. I don't see how it could be easier to do it the old way. The
databases per se aren't doing anything magical, they're just maintaining
these records -- and a lot more -- in an easily, readily, and quickly
accessible format. Instead of hunting for something in a book and probably
not finding it, you now have it on a computer.
Antonio Torrecillas
An Spanish player answered in an interview that some years ago He
traveled with many chess informants, opening books and ending books to
play tournaments. Last years HE only needed his computer.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
they are impacted as well.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon Blog:
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
pocobueno
have been a given, what do ya reckon?...fuckwit
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:A-GdnVuwv5BfeQzY...@pghconnect.com...
Mark Houlsby
pocobueno wrote:
> well that's a stunning piece of logic, congratulations...I think that might
> have been a given, what do ya reckon?...fuckwit
>
Careful, people might start to think that you're me, and you wouldn't
want that.
Trust me.
Bark!
"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-s...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk>
wrote in message news:458d...@212.67.96.135...
I will just reffer you to this article to prove database DOES help. Of
course, it helps if you know how to use it. I.e. if I play 100 games in
Philidor's Defense I can open my personal database and see where I went
wrong before, what lines I found that improve my game etc. This is all
hypotetic. For instance, I played Bg4 on move 3 25 times and I lost 24. Now
thats indicating something to me. I won 1 game. Ok, I find that game in the
database and see that the opponent was 400 points lower than my rating is.
That is how it works. And you let Fritz analyse move 3 for black and then
you play that next time. And you play more and more and in the end you make
a conclusion - arrrr.... I don't wanna play Philidor anymore. LOL
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mig03.pdf