Computerized data base searches
-
Pedro Saavedra
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:54 am
Computerized data base searches
I own Checker Board with the Cake engine. As I understand it, Cake searches through its data base and if it finds the position it gives the moves and their evaluation (much as a book might). If not, it starts to analyze the position. The use of the latter feature is a no-no in many turn-based sites, but if one had the data base in text, using it would not be illegal. My question is if there is a way to make CB stop if it does not find the position (i.e. do no original analysis) so one could use it strictly as a data base search engine. If not, is there an alternative that could do that with the Cake Openings Data Base?
-
Patrick Parker
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:32 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: history of it
the players - Location: amite, louisiana
- Contact:
Re: Computerized data base searches
i think playing with a book or program online is cheating
unless agreed on by both parties
unless agreed on by both parties
-
Pedro Saavedra
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:54 am
Re: Computerized data base searches
Patrick says:
> i think playing with a book or program online is cheating
> unless agreed on by both parties
Or allowed by the rules. I make no bones that I consult books when I play turn-based, and I would not play in a system that did not allow it. I just had an enjoyable game with Jim Loy. We followed a line in Basic Checkers which had an error. Jim had found it ages ago, and was hoping I would follow it blindly, but I spotted the fact that it had to be a mistake. We ended up drawing and then discussed the line.
Another enjoyable moment came when I was following Basic Checkers in a game with a player whose identity I did not know. We went into a game in the Banks-Tinsley 1952 match and the game ended right where theirs ended. I informed my opponent of this and he answered, "Yes, I was one of the referees in that match." I had been playing Richard Fortman.
Some players have memorized the books. I do not like to commit lines to memory, so I would rather look them up. In chess I subscribe to a data base which not only has games, but tells me the percentage of white and black wins recorded. Well, that is just an indication, for if I am White and go by the fact that 90% of the games in that position have been won by White and stop there, I may miss the fact that in the other 10% Black has played a different move which forces a win.
You and I are playing Pool Checkers in Gold Token. Be advised that I own and consult two of Vladimir Kaplan's books on Pool Checkers. Not that they are that much help, I would do better studying them that checking to see if they have the line I am playing. But I make no apologies. I play turn-based because I like to consult books.
Computers are a different matter altogether. Then the computer does the thinking for you, unless it searches a database. In fact, I do the latter with Google from time to time. And I am wondering if Checker Board can be used just as a database searcher.
I do have to question one thing in turn-based. If I have been playing the Single Corner against my computer, must I stop the minute somebody plays it against me? I would love to see a committee of players trying to sort these things out. How should players who regularly study openings using the computer when one of their games enters a line they have been studying? Can a precise rule avoid players just making what moves the computer tells them to make, but not curtail their general use of computers to study the game?
> i think playing with a book or program online is cheating
> unless agreed on by both parties
Or allowed by the rules. I make no bones that I consult books when I play turn-based, and I would not play in a system that did not allow it. I just had an enjoyable game with Jim Loy. We followed a line in Basic Checkers which had an error. Jim had found it ages ago, and was hoping I would follow it blindly, but I spotted the fact that it had to be a mistake. We ended up drawing and then discussed the line.
Another enjoyable moment came when I was following Basic Checkers in a game with a player whose identity I did not know. We went into a game in the Banks-Tinsley 1952 match and the game ended right where theirs ended. I informed my opponent of this and he answered, "Yes, I was one of the referees in that match." I had been playing Richard Fortman.
Some players have memorized the books. I do not like to commit lines to memory, so I would rather look them up. In chess I subscribe to a data base which not only has games, but tells me the percentage of white and black wins recorded. Well, that is just an indication, for if I am White and go by the fact that 90% of the games in that position have been won by White and stop there, I may miss the fact that in the other 10% Black has played a different move which forces a win.
You and I are playing Pool Checkers in Gold Token. Be advised that I own and consult two of Vladimir Kaplan's books on Pool Checkers. Not that they are that much help, I would do better studying them that checking to see if they have the line I am playing. But I make no apologies. I play turn-based because I like to consult books.
Computers are a different matter altogether. Then the computer does the thinking for you, unless it searches a database. In fact, I do the latter with Google from time to time. And I am wondering if Checker Board can be used just as a database searcher.
I do have to question one thing in turn-based. If I have been playing the Single Corner against my computer, must I stop the minute somebody plays it against me? I would love to see a committee of players trying to sort these things out. How should players who regularly study openings using the computer when one of their games enters a line they have been studying? Can a precise rule avoid players just making what moves the computer tells them to make, but not curtail their general use of computers to study the game?