![]() If you are talking about people using opening explorers and computer calculated moves in correspondence games, I would suggest that when you make a correspondence game that you make it clear with your opponent if it is either okay to use the computer or not. Yes, another tab in the browser, or even a non-online database can be opened, but again, lichess and both try to fight against that with their own methods. In fact, in timed games, I don't think a player can open the opening explorer or game analysis mode while the game is in progress. If you are suggesting that people are using the opening explorers and computer calculated moves during timed such as blitz, bullet, rapid and classic games to play lines, then that is called cheating, and and lichess both actively try and fight against that. So, I'm a little bit confused about what you are saying. ![]() even John Bartholomew says he doesn't know any theory, but he just plays strong developing moves and recognizes his opponents threats and wins.Īgain this is all rubbish if it's in correspondence. After thousands of games and years of playing, you'll eventually see an opening and think things like "I'm not suppose to take this pawn, last time I did I got crushed", "last the couple times responded this way I wasn't totally losing", "I have to look out for this tactical motif in the mid-game", "I have no idea what to do.I'll just play solid and develop". Around the tenth time you lose you'll begin to recognize motifs. Look up youtube videos about he opening and get a general idea of traps and tricks in the opening. Ah, you lost to the same opening a third time but different variation? Time for more reading and game analysis. Put the game into an engine and see which of your moves were good or bad. Oh you lost to the same opening again? Time to read up on it again. You don't need to memorize heaps of theory unless you're a GM. Afterword, check refutations or at least openings that don't make you worse. Think, "oh this is the main theme, they'll attack this piece and clamp down on the these important squares". I don't mean just see the top ten moves of theory and see the name, you gotta at least lightly study the ideas. In standard and blitz though it would be cheating.īut if you get destroyed by an opening you have to look it up. There is a reason correspondence allow opening book analysis and tactical recognizers in game. Some people don't take correspondence that seriously, others use it for calculations and opening prep. □□ Stop being Sheep guys - check for engine alignment, and the winning percentage.If you're playing correspondence games it's pretty much fair game. Researchers may also be convincing themselves that 2.Nf3 has a sample size which is much less and cannot be trusted - but in fact those are really from the games with true experts playing to the nuances of the position - i.e. I am not completely convinced this was common knowledge and maybe you were re-assured in your choices by the quantity of games - but be aware that isn't necessarily the move you should really play especially because of the transpositional bias. I thought I should point this out as a public service announcement and observation. The alignment to Sheep and` Sheep herding seems to be with most other databases. The alignment to top engine choices is actually with Lichess master's database. So much so, that I myself with 1.Nc3 was playing after e5 2.e4 and just making use of my Vienna game knowledge. The thing is, I find this kind of misleading. Is because of transposition and wanting to show the most games. ![]() The reason that other databases including show 2.e4 Credit to him for highlighting e5 as a major problem. It seems that you can run a very simple test to expose the misleading "sheep nature" of many online databases.Īnd yes I must say this was also emphasised recently when I checked out IM Lawrence's promo video of the 1.Nc3 system. It must always be remembered that White can hope only to obtain a positional advantage and not a game that is relatively easy to win." - Capablanca Of course it is true that, as in everything, there are exceptions. " Where openings are concerned, chess masters are like a flock of sheep everyone follows the first master's example. Especially given I have found a funny Capablanca quotation which is: A few months ago, I thought that the opening explorer had a bug in it, because I reasoned it did not match the opening explorer or Chessbase etc - it turns out, it is actually less misleading.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |