You know what this board is in need for?

[Skybird]

We have political discussion, religious discussion, cultural discussion, military discussion, game-related discussion, stupid discussion, useless discussion, we all have that and then quite some more, and in English and Japanese and Korean and who-knows-what as well. But we do not have - a chess corner! Hell, every provincial newsppaer with 4 page-editions has a chess corner, but we do not!? A nice little place for the chessies amongst us, about chess computers old and new, chess programs, chess tournaments man-computer, and maybe an occasional live correspondence chess match between interested board members?

[Sixpack]

I tried to establish exactly that years ago @ simhq.com, but lack of interest prevented such.

Shame, as it is the oldest game-simulation of tactical battle in written history, at least that I know of.

[now some bright kid here is going to look that up and post a schmuck reply soon thereafter ;) ]

[jumpy]

Chess... hmm, reminds me of my one-time excursion into the shady/cliquey world that was my middleschool after school chess club;
I was about 9 or 10 years old and really the most interesting thing on my mind back then was how I could avoid the afterschool sports activitys. So, being the bright spark that I was I thought I'd have a go at the 'Chess Club' - game of skill and strategy as ancient as the oldest thing I knew about - which at that time was my dad, and the strange old geezer who used to cycle the wrong way up the fast lane of the duelcarridgeway on our morning run to school.
Anyway, the first session came and I was looking forwards to being shown the rudiments of how the game was played and understanding some slightly more advanced methods of humilliating your opponent. It was I who ultimately was in for the humilliation, however.
At this point I should point out how the chessclub kept score of the games played- there was a 'chess-ladder' fixed to the wall with (predictably) the names of all those playing, jostelling for position, firmly convinced of their own superiority of intent, their status as a credible humanbeing dependent on their ability to move off the proverbial 'bottom rung'.
So, my first game came along and after about 30 - 40 minutes I had comfortably decimated my opponents pieces and backed him into a corner before administering the coup de grace checkmate.
Buoyed up by my recent success, I validated my being by moving my name tag up one position from the bottom of the ladder, whilst my erstwhile foe tasted the bitterness of defeat and sank to the lowest of the low; sullied for evermore by this elementary failure in a battle of witts and guile.
The next game was a little different. My adversary (a spotty little oikk from form 12) and I sat opposite eachother, each eyeing the other with suspision and I wager I caught a glimpse of carefully concealed contempt directed at me. Evidently I could expect trouble; the game might even last untill next week! Even in my wildest speculations I had not counted on being thrashed so spectacularily and in so few moves.
Ten minutes later it was all over; Checkmate! (or for those of the younger txt generation 'chekm8').
My position on the ladder of success plumeted from the dizzying heights of penultimate to ultimate bottom and to make things even worse, my first opponent had moved on by winning a game of his own, so I did not evan have the solidarity of misery loving company. Still, it was early days yet and I was sure that as the weeks progressed our club organiser would begin to impart such subtle knowlege and cunning stratagems as to make the whole process an endevour to be inspired by. Wrong again.
In an effort to regain the shreds of my dignity, I began another game - with the same result - defeat! This pretty much marked out the pattern for the next several games, until crushed by my continuing lack of success (visible to all and sundry on the shining ladder of worth) I finally quit the chess club to find a more worth while persuit for my tallents - hockey, which as it turned out I was pretty good at.

Now, I must leave this view of the yester-year of my youth and reflect upon an important lesson in life which I realised later was summed up rather succinctly in my above tale. All of existance is a struggle to get off the bottom rung of society, to distance one's self from the lowest of the low, weather in employment or deeds and beliefs; everyday life is filled with such little pointers of our worth as an individual or part of a greater whole, some only visible to ourselves, others are in such plain view of everyone else that it can be quite a challenge to even admit their existance to yourself.
As analogys go, the ladder is a fairly obvious one, yet it is none the less an accurate one at that, but filled with such gems as: if at first you do not succeed, try, try again- or more interestingly for me- if you are totally rubbish at something, try something else, you might be plesantly supprised that there are many other things you might be good at or even excell at.
It was not until many years later I understood what lay at the heart of my abysmal preformance at the school chess club. It was not that I lacked ability to learn (as proved by my surviving to adulthood and gaining some reasonable qualifications and, eventually, a job I can live with), nor that the other kids were any better at chess than me. The simple and shocking fact was they cheated. I know, I know, how is it possible to cheat at chess? I mean, it's hardly possible to sneak an extra knight up your shirt cuff or rigg the pieces before you deal them hehe. No, these young people had read one of those 'how to win at chess in x number of moves' books and learned the winning formula by rote.
Indeed this revalation contains more than an acceptable amount of truth when viewed in line with the ladder analogy of life. No matter how hard you try at something there will usually be somebody out there who is better at it than you; if not now, then there soon will be. But how they came by their knowlege of how to be better at it than you is what is most important; there's no rule that says knowlege must be aquired by hard work and dedication to a cause, particularily if someother shmuck has done all the legwork for you.

I might not have learned to be a great chess player, but I learned that the quick and dirty route to a goal is usually the most efficient. The chances are that everybody else is up to the same thing, so if you don't want to be left on the bottom rung for the rest of your life, wise up and start taking advantage now!

So, in summation - Chess; not just a game for smart russian dudes and dumb supercomputers which can callculate pi to a million decimal places but couldn't co-ordinate bipedal appendages to remain upright for more than a few seconds. There's deffinately more to it than pushing carved figurines about a chequered board, oh yes indeedy. :yep:

[Skybird]

How can reading chess books be considered as cheating?

Many novices at young age do make a big mistake. They think the most intersting part of a match is the opening, and so they start learning chess openings. But they learn them like a tape recorder records music, they do not understand them. So they sit down during the next match, and try to play down the sequence of moves they just have learned.

and then their oppenent throws in a move they have not learned, and all of a sudden they are in trouble, and mess it up. Because now they have to think of their own moves, instead of blindly copying that sequence. since they never have understood what the idea behind this or that opening system is, they violate it's inherent strategic ideas, or give up the potential that they - unknowingly - had build up before.

No, they had not cheated you, Jumpy. No matter how limited their and your abilities were: at that popint of time they just were better prepared than you, that is all!

In tournament chess, sometimes even the first twenty moves of both sides are being played by the books, eventually. Two opponents may copy the complete first half of a match that they did in the past, until one adds a new move of which he thinks it is the better move than that he made back then and that costed him the match.

That's why theory fills whole encyclopedias nowadays. reading chess book is no cheating. It's part of the training, to be better prepared.

[STEED]

But we do not have - a chess corner!

Interesting idea Skybird.

[Iceman]

I'm down with dat idea :up: I played an online game a while back Asheron's Call and was kinda cool they had put chess boards around in the game with pieces like the monsters in the game ..was very cool....we should design one with the naval theme possibly....?DD's....Subs...I don't know.

Only thing I don't like about playing other people is if they are in a rush...I understand there are time limit type games but I don't care for them.....and the occasional lamer who has to use some type of computer to caculate out there moves in order to beat ya...in this case the time limit game is kinda cool cause it does'nt give ample time for the cheat to do his caculations out....anyway good idea Bird.

[STEED]

I'm down with dat idea :up: I played an online game a while back Asheron's Call and was kinda cool they had put chess boards around in the game with pieces like the monsters in the game ..was very cool....we should design one with the naval theme possibly....?DD's....Subs...I don't know.

Only thing I don't like about playing other people is if they are in a rush...I understand there are time limit type games but I don't care for them.....and the occasional lamer who has to use some type of computer to caculate out there moves in order to beat ya...in this case the time limit game is kinda cool cause it does'nt give ample time for the cheat to do his caculations out....anyway good idea Bird.

King = Battle ship
Queen = Air craft carrier
Bishop =Light Cruiser
Knight = Destroyer
Rook = Heavy Cruiser
Pawn = Sub

How about that?

[TLAM Strike]

Shame, as it is the oldest game-simulation of tactical battle in written history, at least that I know of. You never heard of Go (AKA Weiqi or Baduk). It dates back to around 2000 BC.

King = Battle ship
Queen = Air craft carrier
Bishop =Light Cruiser
Knight = Destroyer
Rook = Heavy Cruiser
Pawn = Sub

How about that? Battleship and CV should probaly be reversed. ;)

We Hell, every provincial newsppaer with 4 page-editions has a chess corner, but we do not!? I don't think ours does. Of coruse we don't have "Provinces" here in the US...

[Sixpack]

Shame, as it is the oldest game-simulation of tactical battle in written history, at least that I know of. You never heard of Go (AKA Weiqi or Baduk). It dates back to around 2000 BC.

Ofcourse ! How could that one slip my mind ?! :smug:

[August]

Chess... hmm, reminds me of my one-time excursion into the shady/cliquey world that was my middleschool after school chess club;
I was about 9 or 10 years old and really the most interesting thing on my mind back then was how I could avoid the afterschool sports activitys. So, being the bright spark that I was I thought I'd have a go at the 'Chess Club' - game of skill and strategy as ancient as the oldest thing I knew about - which at that time was my dad, and the strange old geezer who used to cycle the wrong way up the fast lane of the duelcarridgeway on our morning run to school.
Anyway, the first session came and I was looking forwards to being shown the rudiments of how the game was played and understanding some slightly more advanced methods of humilliating your opponent. It was I who ultimately was in for the humilliation, however.
At this point I should point out how the chessclub kept score of the games played- there was a 'chess-ladder' fixed to the wall with (predictably) the names of all those playing, jostelling for position, firmly convinced of their own superiority of intent, their status as a credible humanbeing dependent on their ability to move off the proverbial 'bottom rung'.
So, my first game came along and after about 30 - 40 minutes I had comfortably decimated my opponents pieces and backed him into a corner before administering the coup de grace checkmate.
Buoyed up by my recent success, I validated my being by moving my name tag up one position from the bottom of the ladder, whilst my erstwhile foe tasted the bitterness of defeat and sank to the lowest of the low; sullied for evermore by this elementary failure in a battle of witts and guile.
The next game was a little different. My adversary (a spotty little oikk from form 12) and I sat opposite eachother, each eyeing the other with suspision and I wager I caught a glimpse of carefully concealed contempt directed at me. Evidently I could expect trouble; the game might even last untill next week! Even in my wildest speculations I had not counted on being thrashed so spectacularily and in so few moves.
Ten minutes later it was all over; Checkmate! (or for those of the younger txt generation 'chekm8').
My position on the ladder of success plumeted from the dizzying heights of penultimate to ultimate bottom and to make things even worse, my first opponent had moved on by winning a game of his own, so I did not evan have the solidarity of misery loving company. Still, it was early days yet and I was sure that as the weeks progressed our club organiser would begin to impart such subtle knowlege and cunning stratagems as to make the whole process an endevour to be inspired by. Wrong again.
In an effort to regain the shreds of my dignity, I began another game - with the same result - defeat! This pretty much marked out the pattern for the next several games, until crushed by my continuing lack of success (visible to all and sundry on the shining ladder of worth) I finally quit the chess club to find a more worth while persuit for my tallents - hockey, which as it turned out I was pretty good at.

Now, I must leave this view of the yester-year of my youth and reflect upon an important lesson in life which I realised later was summed up rather succinctly in my above tale. All of existance is a struggle to get off the bottom rung of society, to distance one's self from the lowest of the low, weather in employment or deeds and beliefs; everyday life is filled with such little pointers of our worth as an individual or part of a greater whole, some only visible to ourselves, others are in such plain view of everyone else that it can be quite a challenge to even admit their existance to yourself.
As analogys go, the ladder is a fairly obvious one, yet it is none the less an accurate one at that, but filled with such gems as: if at first you do not succeed, try, try again- or more interestingly for me- if you are totally rubbish at something, try something else, you might be plesantly supprised that there are many other things you might be good at or even excell at.
It was not until many years later I understood what lay at the heart of my abysmal preformance at the school chess club. It was not that I lacked ability to learn (as proved by my surviving to adulthood and gaining some reasonable qualifications and, eventually, a job I can live with), nor that the other kids were any better at chess than me. The simple and shocking fact was they cheated. I know, I know, how is it possible to cheat at chess? I mean, it's hardly possible to sneak an extra knight up your shirt cuff or rigg the pieces before you deal them hehe. No, these young people had read one of those 'how to win at chess in x number of moves' books and learned the winning formula by rote.
Indeed this revalation contains more than an acceptable amount of truth when viewed in line with the ladder analogy of life. No matter how hard you try at something there will usually be somebody out there who is better at it than you; if not now, then there soon will be. But how they came by their knowlege of how to be better at it than you is what is most important; there's no rule that says knowlege must be aquired by hard work and dedication to a cause, particularily if someother shmuck has done all the legwork for you.

I might not have learned to be a great chess player, but I learned that the quick and dirty route to a goal is usually the most efficient. The chances are that everybody else is up to the same thing, so if you don't want to be left on the bottom rung for the rest of your life, wise up and start taking advantage now!

So, in summation - Chess; not just a game for smart russian dudes and dumb supercomputers which can callculate pi to a million decimal places but couldn't co-ordinate bipedal appendages to remain upright for more than a few seconds. There's deffinately more to it than pushing carved figurines about a chequered board, oh yes indeedy. :yep:

Geez and i've always just considered the game of chess as "fun"... :yep:

[jumpy]

/snip/ Geez and i've always just considered the game of chess as "fun"... :yep:

lol what can I say? it was a slow day at work... though I do say I hope somebody appreciated the slight humour there :arrgh!:

[porphy]

:up:

I'm in. Chess rules. Warning, I have some chess books in my home :-j Hope I won't be looked at as a cheater... For example I read Attack with Mikhail Tal, however I will never be able to attack in a way that looks like a Tal attack...

Cheers Porphy

[Takeda Shingen]

I play as well. Neat idea.

EDIT: To add, the digesting of material found in books is not cheating. The developing player is supposed to study openings and games, as well as keep abreast on the continuously developing theory. How else is one supposed to keep up on the ever-evolving world of hypermodern chess? Personally consult with Yasser Seirawan? That's just silly.

[Torplexed]

Personally consult with Yasser Seirawan? That's just silly.

Funny you should say that. Yasser Seirawan grew up in Seattle. Saw him play in a tournament once.

I played on a team in high school. However, I gave up chess years ago. So many games ended in a draw or perpetual checkmate. No luck factor to keep things interesting. Plus you never know if the opponent you are playing on-line is cheating by using a chess program set to the 'Deep Blue' level.

[Skybird]

The use of books was considered to be perfectly acceptable in correspondence chess at least when I played that for some years during the mid-80s. Correspondence chess even was high-rated due to it'S educational effect - becasue the using of books. It made you a better player for sure. I do not know, but the use of computers for that probably is acceptable as well today. You couldn't control it anyhow. Maybe it's importance has faded out in the last years and gave room to the online chess forums and virtual arenas. Does anyone know about the status of correspondence chess today?

Almost become sentimental, when thinkling of those years, and my early board computers. Today I am collecting certain models of that age. My pride is Sargon 2.5 ARB by Chafitz, unfortunately it is broken and does not work. Gave it away to experts two times, for repair, but they said it needs two parts that are very hard to be found nowadays. I have several others from that period as well, Chess Challengers and Mephistos.

[Onkel Neal]

Big chess fan myself. As for a dedicated forum, I think we already have too many (28!!) individual forums :-j but I am open to the idea, as long as the forum gets enough traffic (several posts a week). Otherwise, I would suggest just starting "Chess" topics here or in the Sub & Naval Books, Films, and Models forum. I could add to the description:

The catch-all for discussions about submarine and naval books, movies, scale models, chess and board games, and other media.

:hmm:

[Torplexed]

Skybird: I had the old Chess Challenger from Fidelity Electronics too. Received it as a gift in 1980. I guess, technically that was my first computer wargame.....actually my first computer ever. Was nice to have an always willing and ready opponent to hone your skills on. Brings back memories. I still have it around somewhere but the power adapter has long since vanished.

Neal: Sounds like an good idea! :) :up:

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/ChessChallenger.jpg

[Skybird]

That is a Chess Challenger 10 from 1977, with 16 buttons, so I guess it is the C-version, right? One of the earliest chess computers there are, it came right after the model 3. A marvellous looking piece, right like the design was done in those years, the book-form chess Challengers are real classics. I myself have a CC Voice, very much the same layout, but more black instead of red-brown.

ELO (US) was around 1200-1300. There were three versions, but all of them played very much the same. The A- and B_models had only 12 buttons. It's a real beauty, so take good care of it. Many consider it to be one of the best looking computers ever.

After the CC10 came the ugly CC7 (7 levels to choose from), all plastic, ugly colours, and only a little tougher in skill. Next was the CC Voice, and then they changed to the new pressure-sensor design, starting with the CC Sensory 8, which was relatively cheap, and the CC Sensory Voice, which included wood again. I am in desperate search for a CC Sensory Champion, looking much the same like the Sensory Voice. The follow up to that is legendary Elite Champion, of which only 500 were produced, with small bronze plates with the first owner's name on them - a true, rare and very epensive collector's item. They used that software as a basis to produce the cheaper Sensory 9 with green colour then, which returned to the cheaper layout of the Sensory 8 but kept a far better playing level - I still like to play with my Sensory 9 today.

Don't get me started!!!

[Skybird]

Big chess fan myself. As for a dedicated forum, I think we already have too many (28!!) individual forums :-j but I am open to the idea, as long as the forum gets enough traffic (several posts a week). Otherwise, I would suggest just starting "Chess" topics here or in the Sub & Naval Books, Films, and Models forum. I could add to the description:

The catch-all for discussions about submarine and naval books, movies, scale models, chess and board games, and other media.

:hmm:

We could close some of the naval forums in return, there are so many of them... :-j

[kiwi_2005]

A live chess match with other other ppl from here would be cool.

[Skybird]

Yes. Why not open a tournament list? Rules like this:

* No chess board computers, handhelds, PC chess programs that calculate moves of their own
* Books and databases (f.e. chessbase) are legal, analysis in internet as well
* No third persons getting involved
* No strict timetables (many people here do live a non-virtual life in the real world and thus sometimes may not be present for one or two days)
* The winner receives subsim.com's honour medal in 24 karat gold, donated by Mr. Stevens. He also earns the right to be called "Sir".
* If the latter gentleman wins himself, we'll buy him a big donut with an extra portion of marmelade. He also earns the right to be called "Old Chap".
* Loosers will be called "Loosers", now and forever.
* Bystanders not participating in a match may use PC software to create position diagrams every couple of moves and post them in the according thread, and the precise location, of course.
* Every match is run in it's own thread.
* Every such thread will be made a sticky.
* Comments by others are allowed in that thread as long as they do not recommend moves, give warnings or otherwise influence the match. No Kortschnoi-Karpov-Symptoms, please.
* Several matches could be held simultaneously.
* We could hold computer-computer matches as well, with old board computer. These have the charm that 20 years back human plyers at least were able to follow such matches and figure out why the computers did what they did (has become a bit difficult with latest highend-killer-software :lol: )


Interested? Sign in here. So far it is

- Kiwi, and
- Skybird.

As far as a boardcomputer match is concerned, I could throw a Chess Challenger Voice, a CC Sensory 8 and 9, a Mephisto II, a Mephisto M-IV+HG220, a Kasparov Travel Champion 2200 (my strongest board computer), a Mephisto Maestro Travel and a Chess super System III into the competition. I also have a Fidelity Avantgarde (my most expensive piece of hardware), a Novag super constellation and a Sargon 2.5 ARB (please everbody turn white in envy!), but these three unfortunately currently are inoperative, attempts to repair them failed for reasons of electronical parts that are not available. Opponentns in this category should be judged manually concerning their playing strength, and manual levelling of playing levels.

Hm. Now that I think of it the most expensive computers broke the earliest, the cheapest devices held the longest time... :stare:

I leave out PC software, doesn't hold much interest, I think.

[Takeda Shingen]

I am interested as well. Are we running brackets, elimination or a Swiss-style tournament?

[Iceman]

I really like chess so when this thread came up I have been looking at all the possibilites...I have found one which is probably maybe our best option...no download required or even to register you can just type in like G or something...at

http://www.freechess.org/javaboard/index.html

but I found this one today which I think is awesome really....It has the option to purchase it for like $749bucks ..which really just blew me away..you gotta go look at it...you can see your opponent on his/her web cam with sound while you play...great ideas....

http://www.solid-thinking.com/games/create_chess_room.asp

Anyone up for a game to test this one out?....I hang out in the lobby there and see if anyone shows up...:)

[porphy]

Freechess is all a chessplayer needs together with winboard. Highly addictive place once you start to play there... just one more blitz... :|\ My handle is Kajus.

Cheers Porphy

[Type XXIII]

Sign me up as well.

But please bear over with me when it comes to match scheduling, I'm a busy man at times.

[Takeda Shingen]

Do we have to use a program for play, or can we just keep a board at home and log the moves the old fashioned way? (ie Nf3) My preference is for the latter. I always concieved chess as an inherently organic game.

[Skybird]

I vote for the old-fashioned way as well. Have no intention to play the whole match in one run. For that I could go straigth to any chess-webpage, there are several. A match running over several days or one or two weeks is what I am looking for, personally. Visiting the forum as usually, at that opportunity checking what kind of trouble my partner has intentions to bring me into, and after having logged out again playing it out on my chessboard. Next time I visit this place I'll make my move, and so it goes on. Correspondence chess.

But those who prefer the quick match can meet in the according chatrooms, or do it here as well, why not? I must not always have my will :)

I'll be back tomorrow evening. If you start matches meanwhile, don't forget to make each of them a separate thread. Movement notification for two matches in one thread - may be confusing...

[Skybird]

Okay, the first match has started, me and Scandium.

I realize that some people voicing interest prefer dedicated chess-webpages to play it in one rush. Okay, but I personally will not follow that example.

However, Takeda seems to see it differently, and about Kiwi and Type23 I am not sure. Maybe you start your own thread(s) with a match parallel to mine and Scandium's?

Iceman and Porphy seem to prefer to meet in a dedicated chessroom. If they change their minds, they will let us know, I'm sure.

[scandium]

Bump it to add that I've been playing online (mainly on the Free Internet Chess Server using the same username I use here) since '95 due to a shortage of "over the board" opponents where I've lived. In that time I've played over 5,000 blitz games, many slower games, and dabbled in some of variants and found that online cheating, at least on the server I play on, is extremely rare.

I've also done some tournament directing and related work with one of the online chess leagues that runs regular tournaments on FICS and ICC where games are scrupulously examined for cheating.

All in all, in this whole online experience I know of only a few confirmed cases and a few more suspected cases, where computer assistance was used.

The reality on the better servers, and I'd imagine it'd be the same on a forum like this one, is that the vast majority of people don't use computer assistance. Really there is no benefit because there's no satisfaction that you gain winning on your own, or insighs gained from the playing experience combined with any post-game discussion and analysis that can show where your thinking was 'right' and where it went wrong.

I think there's room here for a chess forum as with so many members and such a good atmosphere this is an ideal host, plus many of the sims we play are not so different from chess and the two attract a lot of the same players.

Lastly: I generally agree with what skybird suggested and would summarize (adding my own thoughts) that a good format for such a forum should contain:

- Stickies outlining the general rules of play as adopted for a forum format like this along with some useful links to online resources where you can learn more about the game.

- I think stickying the games themselves, at least the ones in progress, is probably a good idea too as it would show at a glance what's on the go and make it easier to observe live games.

- Computer engine assistance (analysis, hints, etc) should be forbidden however the usage of books and/or databases should be upto the players themselves provided both parties agree on this in advance (these are commonly allowed in correspondence and email chess, as pointed out by skybird).

- Players should also stipulate any time restrictions they are under before the game commences, otherwise I think it should be assumed that the rate will generally be at 1 or more moves per day/every other day, where possible, but at times may only be a move every two or three days as other RL tasks intrude and/or a position becomes complex. If one player is prevented somehow from making a move for a period of more than 7 days then the opponent should be notified at the earliest opportunity with an idea of when play may begin again.

- Also second skybird's thoughts that outside commentary should be welcome provided that no comments are made on the position itself while the game is in progress, and no hints, suggestions, or advice given to either player.

- An accepted notation (algebraic being most common these days) should be used to record the moves with the optional use of diagrams illustrating the position encouraged but not mandatory.

That's a pretty basic framework but about all that I think is necessary for a successful chess forum, should we be granted one. I'd add to that that the possible success of such a forum shouldn't be judged solely on how active it is in a non chess labeled forum like General Topics. I'd wager the chess players on the forums number at least into the hundreds but that only a few of them visit General Topics with any regularity.

Long post but wanted to finally add my own thoughts in this thread.

[Onkel Neal]

- I think stickying the games themselves, at least the ones in progress, is probably a good idea too as it would show at a glance what's on the go and make it easier to observe live games.



Works for me.

[Skybird]

when excluding chip-mates we already are more strict than the set of rules for correspondence chess. We cannot control it, but at least declare it a question of honour not to use active computer-assistance, means: recommended moves, abstract position evaluations.

However, the use of literature should be accepted, since it always has been used in correspondence chess, and is considered to be forming the higher educational value of corr. chess. You can learn a lot that way. I personally do not use a computer-based data-base, but would not object to anyone who does. It is very much the same like literature, only with another method of finding the stuff you need. In books you need to do the search yourself. this is with regard to openings for the main.

In Correspondence chess moves would also be encoded differently, they use numbers only, no letters, a1 becomes 11, and h8 turns into 88. That way, the sequence 1. e4/c5 2. Sf3/Sc6 would translate into 5254 3735 7163 2836.

Has any of you guys every used things like these? :lol:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4545/img07140xd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2246/img07159vx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My God, that match protocol must be close to 30 years old :lol:

[scandium]

when excluding chip-mates we already are more strict than the set of rules for correspondence chess. We cannot control it, but at least declare it a question of honour not to use active computer-assistance, means: recommended moves, abstract position evaluations.

However, the use of literature should be accepted, since it always has been used in correspondence chess, and is considered to be forming the higher educational value of corr. chess. You can learn a lot that way. I personally do not use a computer-based data-base, but would not object to anyone who does. It is very much the same like literature, only with another method of finding the stuff you need. In books you need to do the search yourself. this is with regard to openings for the main.

In Correspondence chess moves would also be encoded differently, they use numbers only, no letters, a1 becomes 11, and h8 turns into 88. That way, the sequence 1. e4/c5 2. Sf3/Sc6 would translate into 5254 3735 7163 2836.

Has any of you guys every used things like these? :lol:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4545/img07140xd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2246/img07159vx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My God, that match protocol must be close to 30 years old :lol:

I agree, though when it comes to literature/databases some players may not possess any and be turned off if they don't have the option of declaring it off limits in their game.

In my case I have, like you (and probably most other experienced players, an extensive chess database that I have used in e-mail games (where it was permitted) - at least during the opening phase of the game (they become less useful the farther into the game you progressed). I stopped short of computer assistance, even where permitted, and would declare at the outset that I would not use it - and my opponents generally shared my feelings.

I also have a small library of chess literature (about 25 books) covering all phases of the game as well as some of the better known game collections (like the Zurich International chess tournament of '53) and could probably make some decently informed recommendations to anyone who wants to explore this somewhat arcane subject but has no idea on what books to consider.

[Skybird]

The PC-software by chessbase, botht he chess programs and the database, come with immense databses of several hundred thousand matches of the last years, and classical ones. However, I always was turned off by using that. Maybe I am a fossile.

I have a substantial collection of chessbooks, the former GDR publisher Sportverlag had a very good collection of chessbooks until the 80s, and a good encyclopedia of chess openings, of which I own around a dozen books on those themes that I used to play in that time. I make use of that, and consider it to be okay, since it is work nevertheless and is allowed in correspondence chess as well (maybe even expected :) ). Despite that, a small number of books on strategy and tactics (of which I do not remmber too much anymore :( ) , and a basic collection of books on principles of endgames. Like so many players, I always disliked endgames, and enver was really strong in that. The ammount of moves one calculates in advance here is a bit beyond my abilities, and I also have no good eye for typical strategic position layouts in endgames. I had several books on chess computers, but somehow I lost them during one of my movements between cities.

[scandium]

I have chessbase, but not Fritz. Chessbase is probably the best datbase program out there and they continue to expand its usefulness with things like e-book opening books in chessbase format, etc.

I think the last chess engine I ever bought was an early version of Chessmaster (for Windows 3.1) back before I started playing online. I definitely prefer human opponents - computers are too precise and lack the same creativity.

I own rather fewer opening books (a handful) but more of the middlegame stuff on strategy, tactics, etc (the bulk of my chess book collection). I agree that endgame books are harder to read and its the hardest part of the game to play as well. I have 3 slim endgame books and actually managed to plow through one of them once upon a time (the most basic of the three). Its something I keep meaning to come back to, or at least pawn and rook + pawn(s) endings. Meh, one of these days :)

[Sixpack]

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4545/img07140xd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2246/img07159vx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My God, that match protocol must be close to 30 years old :lol:

Wish I had one :up:

[Skybird]

I have chessbase, but not Fritz. Chessbase is probably the best datbase program out there and they continue to expand its usefulness with things like e-book opening books in chessbase format, etc.

I think the last chess engine I ever bought was an early version of Chessmaster (for Windows 3.1) back before I started playing online. I definitely prefer human opponents - computers are too precise and lack the same creativity.

I own rather fewer opening books (a handful) but more of the middlegame stuff on strategy, tactics, etc (the bulk of my chess book collection).

you mean when I survive the opening you will catch me in the middle part , then? :)


Sixpack,

I had several albums like this, additonally to chess club and school team I played several corresp. chess tournaments during school age and some years beyond, before leaving for university, which brought all my chess playing to a halt for over ten years. I suffered severely from that and never was able to get back to the former playing level of mine - which really makes me sad nowadays, but I'm a little bit too late now, it seems.

[scandium]

you mean when I survive the opening you will catch me in the middle part , then? :)


Well I would not really fear that if I were you - owning them and having read and digested them all are two separate things ;-) Actually, up until your challenge in this thread rekindled my interest I had been inactive for almost exactly a year and had not looked at a chess board at all. However the interest flared back up pretty quickly and I logged into my online account the same day and played a couple dozen blitz games (discovering in the process just how rusty I am... though that'll pass... I hope :)).

I've had over the years a bit of a mentor, interestingly a countryman of yours, who's only in the last couple years decided (at the tender age of forty-something) to give tournament chess a go and he's really into that now as well (though still plays online too). Like me he's always been an on again/off again player - I usually play fairly intensely for a year or two then take a 3-6 month break... this past one year break was my longest but that was following two years of steady online play that included involvement in online tournaments and such (so I needed a longer break when the time came ;)).