When playing on ICC, one is not allowed to use a computer or databases
unless one has a computer account (C). I respect that, and don't
cheat.

However, I do wonder if it would help players develop if they could
opt for a 'semi-assisted' game, where books could be used.


And perhaps another where books + computer databases, could be used,
but **not** calculating engines (crafty for example). This would I
feel be useful, as long as both players agreed to it before and both
players stuck to it. Of course, you could not stop someone cheating
and using a calculating engine (crafty for example), but then you
can't stop that anyway on ICC.

Personally I'd quite like to play a long time control game on ICC
where both players used books to help them. But this is against the
ICC rules - even if the players agreed to it.

ICC has some pretty stupid games allowed (for example, one where the
aim is to loose all your pieces), so I think games where both parties
are allowed to use either:

a) Books only
b) Books + databases

would be useful.

Any thoughts ?


dave k

In article , Dr. David Kirkby wrote:

are allowed to use either:

a) Books only
b) Books + databases

would be useful.

Any thoughts ?

I would very much like to use books when playing. It should be a
different type of game, though. Instead of "standard" something like
"assisted standard".

I play at FICS but it's probably not so very different in ICC.

--
Ari Makela no escaping it -
I must step on fallen leaves
http://arska.org/hauva/ to take this path (Suzuki Majoko)

Dr. David Kirkby m wrote:
ICC has some pretty stupid games allowed (for example, one where the
aim is to loose all your pieces), so I think games where both parties
are allowed to use either:

a) Books only
b) Books + databases

would be useful.

Sounds like a good idea to me, though I disagree that suicide chess is
stupid. It's not chess, not even slightly, but it is an interesting game.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager that has mystical
powers!

"Dr. David Kirkby" m wrote
in message m...
When playing on ICC, one is not allowed to use a computer or databases
unless one has a computer account (C). I respect that, and don't
cheat.

However, I do wonder if it would help players develop if they could
opt for a 'semi-assisted' game, where books could be used.

Hey Dave,

This has been one of my favorite ideas. Years ago for fun I wrote an
interface to the ICC just so I could have threaded messages (no more hunting
through a text window trying to figure out my conversation with another
user).

It would have been very easy for me to connect Bookup to it. Then I could
play the openings I want, without mouse slips and with no loss of time. I
dreamt of a day when more players would do this so that my opponent and I
would instantly arrive at our "tabia" position and begin original play.

Naturally this would give rise to players borrowing others' opening books
and ultimately to a few highly respected/feared books which would represent
the cutting edge of all online opening play - very exciting!

To opt in or out of this practice, one would be obliged to disclose his
opening book and one would have to label himself with a (B)ook assisted
player like one is now labelled a (C)omputer assisted player.

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com

In article , Mike Leahy wrote:

To opt in or out of this practice, one would be obliged to disclose his
opening book and one would have to label himself with a (B)ook assisted
player like one is now labelled a (C)omputer assisted player.

I disagree with this. One should be able to play both type of games.

--
Ari Makela no escaping it -
I must step on fallen leaves
http://arska.org/hauva/ to take this path (Suzuki Majoko)

I suppose if both players agree to it, I don't see any problem. And,
unfortunately, even though you have to agree not to use such resources on
ICC, I suspect some people still do. I guess though I fail to see the point
in this. Let's assume you and your appointment are 1500 rated players. You
both use opening books and/or databases. Now, after 10 to 15 moves, you
both have grandmaster level positions that neither one of you understand or
know what to do with. How does this make you a better player? I guess if you
intend to only play on ICC, and never play OTB, it doesn't matter. Frankly,
I think a big part of chess is coming out of the opening with a solid
position and not down any material. When I manage to do this (without the
help of books/databases) I'm pretty happy.

Another problem - how do you and your opponent agree at what point you both
start thinking for yourselves? If you're using a database, you could, in
theory, build a database that is constantly being added on to. This means
that, with some opening lines, you could be using a database well into the
mid-game or early end-game! Doesn't sound much like real chess to me. Why
would this appeal to anyone?

"Dr. David Kirkby" m wrote
in message m...
When playing on ICC, one is not allowed to use a computer or databases
unless one has a computer account (C). I respect that, and don't
cheat.

However, I do wonder if it would help players develop if they could
opt for a 'semi-assisted' game, where books could be used.


And perhaps another where books + computer databases, could be used,
but **not** calculating engines (crafty for example). This would I
feel be useful, as long as both players agreed to it before and both
players stuck to it. Of course, you could not stop someone cheating
and using a calculating engine (crafty for example), but then you
can't stop that anyway on ICC.

Personally I'd quite like to play a long time control game on ICC
where both players used books to help them. But this is against the
ICC rules - even if the players agreed to it.

ICC has some pretty stupid games allowed (for example, one where the
aim is to loose all your pieces), so I think games where both parties
are allowed to use either:

a) Books only
b) Books + databases

would be useful.

Any thoughts ?


dave k

"Amos Soma" wrote in message
...

Another problem - how do you and your opponent agree at what point you
both
start thinking for yourselves? If you're using a database, you could, in
theory, build a database that is constantly being added on to. This means
that, with some opening lines, you could be using a database well into the
mid-game or early end-game! Doesn't sound much like real chess to me. Why
would this appeal to anyone?

I think this would appeal to those who would like to play better chess.
Documenting one's openings is a creative effort like creating a new bidding
system for bridge. I am intrigued by two finely tuned opening books playing
out a game to that "early endgame." If neither side can document any
improvement in that line then they might just be documenting the solution to
chess itself. Very exciting!

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com

Ari Makela wrote:
Mike Leahy wrote:
To opt in or out of this practice, one would be obliged to disclose his
opening book and one would have to label himself with a (B)ook assisted
player like one is now labelled a (C)omputer assisted player.

I disagree with this. One should be able to play both type of games.

FICS allows a user to have more than one account, e.g., a normal account,
a computer account and a blindfold account (though only one normal and one
blindfold account per person). Is ICC different in this respect?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable.com (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ E-commerce portal but you never have
to clean it!

However, I do wonder if it would help players develop if they could
opt for a 'semi-assisted' game, where books could be used.


And perhaps another where books + computer databases, could be used,
but **not** calculating engines (crafty for example). Any thoughts ?


dave k

You might consider server-based correspondence chess.

For example :

www.playchess.de
www.chessworld.net

Regards,

Mike,

"I think this would appeal to those who would like to play better chess."

I think we're all interested in playing better chess. However, one does not
become a better chess player by skipping entirely the opening (which is what
Dr. Kirby is suggesting (indirectly)). If we want to remove the opening from
chess, maybe Fischer had the right approach with starting each game with the
back rank randomly set up. This would essentially do away with opening
theory and books (and probably wouldn't bode well for your product).

Amos.

"Mike Leahy" wrote in message
.. .

"Amos Soma" wrote in message
...

Another problem - how do you and your opponent agree at what point you
both
start thinking for yourselves? If you're using a database, you could, in
theory, build a database that is constantly being added on to. This
means
that, with some opening lines, you could be using a database well into
the
mid-game or early end-game! Doesn't sound much like real chess to me.
Why
would this appeal to anyone?

I think this would appeal to those who would like to play better chess.
Documenting one's openings is a creative effort like creating a new
bidding
system for bridge. I am intrigued by two finely tuned opening books
playing
out a game to that "early endgame." If neither side can document any
improvement in that line then they might just be documenting the solution
to
chess itself. Very exciting!

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com