David Richerby wrote in message ...
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,


That's good

though I disagree that suicide chess is
stupid. It's not chess, not even slightly, but it is an interesting game.

Having never played it, I guess I was not really in a good position to comment.

Dave.

Ari Makela wrote in message .. .
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".

Yes I fully agree. They should be in a different catagory. I'm not
sure of all the catagogies for a human player on ICC, but they include
bullet (very very fast), blitz (fast), standard (15 mins/side or more
I think) and suicide.

Hence having an 'assisted standard' would seem quite logical to me.
Using databases and books would not be practical for bullet and
problaby not blitz.



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

Well, I can't recall the rules on FICS (its a long time since I played
there, as I got a bit fed up with all the non-chess related talk, and
the difficulty of finding players at times). But on ICC, any such
assistance would not be against their rules.

"Mike Leahy" wrote in message m...
"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).

I can see the use for that.

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.

I don't think it would be such a good idea to effecitively program
your responses in advance with a computer, so if he play 1 e4, the
interface automatically plays 1 e5 for you.


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!

I can't share your enthesisam for that.

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.

Again, I don't agree. I don't see why one should need to disclose what
book one is using. (I mean this in both opening books for computers,
and paper books). Just use whatever you feel confortable with.

But I agree one would need to disclose the fact you are using such
resources, with perhaps an (A) for assisted, or (B) for books. I would
not be fair to not disclose the use of such assitance.



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

Mike,

"It's about preparing it consciously before the game begins, as every great
chess player does."

Great chess players MEMORIZE openings.

"Mike Leahy" wrote in message
m...
Hey Amos,

I think you might misunderstand. It's not about skipping the opening.
It's
about preparing it consciously before the game begins, as every great
chess
player does. Then having it played out automatically.

One could adopt someone else's opening book and thereby "skip" the
opening.
That would make for a very interesting game and a very interesting
opponent - one that probably can't be beaten at all in the opening but
will
be regularly confused when it's over.

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

"Amos Soma" wrote in message
...
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

"Amos Soma" wrote in message ...
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.

I'm not suggested the opening is removed. But if one plays 100 players
and uses paper books or databases to determine a move, one is likely
to memorise decent replies to the moves people make most often. I was
invisaging a manual process, which uses one's powers of reasoning, and
so one might be inclined to learn from it.

Likewise, if you get to an endgame and you have a couple of bishops vs
a king, a quick look in a book to remind you how best to play this
might be useful. I think it would be better than getting a draw by a
50 move rule. At least you would practice the process.

But again, I'm not suggesting the use of End Game Table Bases (EGTB's)
should be allowed, as that teaches nobody anything.

I'm sure there are people who must play their own computers and look
in paper books, databases, 'crib sheets' etc to jog their memory over
facts. I just feel it would be useful if one could do that with human
players. But if the computer took over, it would be a waste of
everyone's time.

Perhaps games could all be unrated. This would discourage cheaters, as
they would have nothing to gain. But since you know someone's
"standard" rating, you would have some idea of their abilities before
playing them. Clearly someone rated at 3000 as standard is not likley
to gain much by playing someone rated at 1000.

I just think is a shame ICC won't allow this (I've asked, but never
received a response). Whether people want to play it, would be their
choice of course. Just like its ones choice if one wishes to play
'suicide chess' - something I've personally never fancied playing on
ICC, so have not done so.

Dave Kirkby

(SaltOfLife) wrote in message m...
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,

An interesting thought. I don't know what the 'rules' are in this
case, but I assume from what you say the use of other material (books
etc) would be permissable. But personally I'd rather play a game
within a few hours, rather than weeks or even months. But, I've not
tried it, so perhaps I will look at it.

"Amos Soma" wrote in message
...
Mike,

"It's about preparing it consciously before the game begins, as every
great
chess player does."

Great chess players MEMORIZE openings.

Exactly. They memorize the openings they have prepared.

Then they log on to chess servers and occasionally lose a game in the
opening to a slip of the mouse. Or they might like the idea of
automatically playing what they've memorized, just to eliminate some tedium
from the game.

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com -- the king of opening memorization tools

"Dr. David Kirkby" m wrote
in message m...
"Mike Leahy" wrote in message
m...
"Dr. David Kirkby" m
wrote
in message m...


I don't think it would be such a good idea to effecitively program
your responses in advance with a computer, so if he play 1 e4, the
interface automatically plays 1 e5 for you.

Hmm. I love this idea. For one thing, I play a lot of three minute chess,
and I somehow lose three seconds right off the bat in many games even though
I'm dragging out 1.d4 as fast I can.

Personally I don't think White's clock should start until he makes a move
but that's another peeve.

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!

I can't share your enthesisam for that.

Why not? I'd be thrilled to see a group of thousands of online players
honing the ultimate opening reference through praxis.

Mike Leahy wrote:
Hmm. I love this idea. For one thing, I play a lot of three minute
chess, and I somehow lose three seconds right off the bat in many games
even though I'm dragging out 1.d4 as fast I can.

On FICS, neither player's clock starts until they have made their first
move.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Beefy T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement that's made from
a cow!

Sounds like something close to "cheating," but then, that's me.. If I am
playing a game of chess against someone... I want to play only them.. not a
book, not a computer, not a chess engine..

I approach chess like a test in college... do all the preparation you feel you
need... get in as much practice as you see fit.. but when it's time to play..
books are closed...

Also, it seems that if you study books and openings over and over.. you become
just a memorized, and "book" player... I am no grandmaster.. but I relish
playing book players... you can almost "see" the moment that "you are out of
book" and they lose their composure.. knowing how to memorize moves.. but not
being able to play ... chess.

BartenderWJT
WillsGambit@ICC