Answers.Body: <p>If that database contained purely grandmaster games, and we were fast enough to process all of that information, then you could technically replicate the moves of any grandmaster and become <em>equal</em> to their skill level. However, if faced with a board layout not in the database, you would have to use your own intuition. That, unfortunately, must be learnt and cannot be downloaded.</p>
  
  <p>If you downloaded games from chess computers too, you could play at a higher level than any human, however new board states would again throw you off since you would have to process the board yourself and not rely on the database.</p>
  
  <p>So I guess the answer is that if you downloaded a database of all grandmaster and computer games you could theoretically beat any grandmaster as long as you repeat a game in which the side you are playing as won. Any divergence into a new line will make the database obselete.</p>
  
  <p>As for the tablebase, you would have to hold your ground against your opponent until there were 7 pieces left, and then you would be able to spot the best move for the rest of the game. The issue here is that with 7 pieces left, most grandmasters are nearly flawless in their endgames anyway, and unless you enter the endgame with a small advantage you will be pretty much equal, even with machine skill.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T15:00:47.643Z
Answers.Text: Very thoughtful answer. And yes I would love to be able to fully play and comprehend every move played in a TCEC database! )). But the thing is, if you could remember over 6.5 million games, then couldn't you use ideas from some of those games for when you get out of 'theory'? You just kind of know what move must be played, because you have mountains and mountains of patterns stored in your brain?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T08:19:53.027Z
Answers.Text: "as long as you repeat a game in which the side you are playing as won" -- good luck with that; almost all games deviate from what was played before pretty quickly.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T08:41:06.630Z
Answers.Text: @RemcoGerlich that was my point. it's not gonna happen.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T08:44:08.703Z
Answers.Text: @SorinSolberg You said "if we downloaded a gigantic database". This means that you would still have to interpret the information yourself. Sure, you could make educated moves by looking at similar positions in grandmaster games, however people already do that. The reason this isn't effective is because one position can never be directly compared to another. There is always some quirk 8 moves down the line which makes this position different, and makes the best move different.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T11:45:30.803Z
Answers.Text: I agree. Does that mean tactics training isn't super effective? These databases are LOADED with tactics, and people say to train tactics for pattern recognition.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T11:55:58.400Z
Answers.Text: @SorinSolberg In my opinion, tactics training helps you to recognise when you can use tactics, however it depends on the situation as to whether you should use that tactic. In cases where a tactic is available and useful, someone who has practised tactics will be better at spotting the tactic and evaluating whether to use it. Someone who has not done this may not even spot the tactic. I think that tactics training is useful to let you process board states faster, however it will not improve your playing by a considerable amount once you get past the "beginner" level of chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T12:01:16.610Z
Answers.Text: Yup I agree. Openings and studying the middle and endgame positions that arise out of that opening (and mostcimportantly, studying how to punish bad openings) have actually helped me more than tactics for OTB. By the way, wouldn't a database help you punish a bad opening like the Latvian Gambit or get through like maybe the King's gambit without ever having to study it?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T12:06:33.697Z
Answers.Text: @SorinSolberg yep, in that case the database would help. With openings, the number of possible board positions is more limited and certain openings are commonly played. As soon as a game goes outside of theory, it becomes increasingly more unlikely that another game has been played the same way. Because of this, i do not think that a game database would be useful for middle and end games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T14:34:44.433Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-28T08:45:03.900Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-07-28T08:45:03.900Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.Body: <p>It would hardly help, because <strong>chess is not a game of knowledge</strong>. It's a game of skill. It wouldn't be much different from "downloading" video of all football games ever and expecting to play like Messi.</p>
  
  <p>To play strong chess, you need to be able to find the best move in a position you've never seen before, that usually has never been played before.</p>
  
  <p>Yes, pattern recognition is a big part of it -- but you'll still need to know <em>why</em> those patterns work, <em>why</em> moves were played and others weren't, and be apply to apply that knowledge to new positions. Just knowing the old games instead of having them in a database isn't that much help. And there are still lots of positions where pattern recognition <em>isn't</em> the important thing, but rather exact calculation.</p>
  
  <p>Tablebases are different matter, because they contain <em>everything</em> when the number of pieces is small enough, and the moves they contain are perfect. If this player reaches a winning position that is in the database, he'll always win it. That's much better than human players manage. But he'll have to reach those positions first...</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T11:52:56.647Z
Answers.Text: Thank you. I agree, Chess is a game of skill and not so much knowledge. When Igor Smirnov was an IM, he was able to skillfully understand positions even though his knowledge was far inferior from his old GM coach's level. Smirnov would actually win most of his practice games I think. I like your football comparison by the way. But okay here is my next question; why does Carlsen and other top GMs study and memorize games? Carlsen memorized 30000 games, and in an interview he said that he already knows what to do, but spends time verifying his moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T08:19:03.683Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-28T09:18:09.797Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-07-28T09:18:09.797Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <p>I don't think it'll help, unless you download the Stockfish engine (but not the database). You can't win a game by just checking the database, you'll need the understand the moves. There's no point with a 7-men tablebase if you miss a simple tactic in a new position not in the database.</p>
  
  <p>I'm convinced I can defeat a FIDE 1400 player, even if the player is allowed to search the database during the game. I'm happy to allow my opponent unlimited access to 7-men tablebase. That wouldn't make any difference.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T11:48:44.213Z
Answers.Text: Thank you. But then why does Magnus Carlsen have 30000 games memorized? There are recipes, especially at the top level, although I guess a database doesn't account for calculation and move evaluation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T12:07:49.297Z
Answers.Text: @SorinSolberg I never mentioned Carlsen memorized 30000 games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T12:10:45.290Z
Answers.Text: Yeah I know. My point is, if memorizing a game database isn't so helpful, then why do GMs bother to study and memorize chess games?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T09:11:57.757Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-28T09:11:57.757Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Body: <p>If we downloaded a gigantic database of chess games into our brains (intelligence downloads), then would we play at a stronger level than the world's leading top players?</p>
  
  <p>What about if we downloaded a 7-piece tablebase into our heads? </p>
  
  <p>And also I was thinking the size of the game database would be 6.5 million games, and all grandmaster games or at least above 2400.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T14:28:03.500Z
Comments.Text: Try playing a game of slow chess online with a database of 6.5 million games available, do you really play that much stronger?
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T14:32:42.847Z
Comments.Text: But those databases usually stop at the middlegame. Also would it teach us new ideas and patterns in chess?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T16:06:19.330Z
Comments.Text: With brain big enough to store database and fast enough to process its searching paterns, you should probably just download stockfish instead.
Comments.UserDisplayName: hoacin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-31T11:58:18.297Z
Comments.Text: But that's not the point; Magnus Carlsen studies and memorizes games.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sorin Solberg
Tags: <database><psychology><computer-chess>
Title: What if we downloaded a gigantic database of chess games into our brains (intelligence downloads)?
ThreadText: # What if we downloaded a gigantic database of chess games into our brains (intelligence downloads)?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-07-27)
  
  If we downloaded a gigantic database of chess games into our brains (intelligence downloads), then would we play at a stronger level than the world's leading top players?
  
  What about if we downloaded a 7-piece tablebase into our heads?
  
  And also I was thinking the size of the game database would be 6.5 million games, and all grandmaster games or at least above 2400.
  
  **Tags:** database, psychology, computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Try playing a game of slow chess online with a database of 6.5 million games available, do you really play that much stronger?  
  > **username_0**: But those databases usually stop at the middlegame. Also would it teach us new ideas and patterns in chess?  
  > **username_2**: With brain big enough to store database and fast enough to process its searching paterns, you should probably just download stockfish instead.  
  > **username_0**: But that's not the point; Magnus Carlsen studies and memorizes games.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-07-27. Score: 3
  
  If that database contained purely grandmaster games, and we were fast enough to process all of that information, then you could technically replicate the moves of any grandmaster and become *equal* to their skill level. However, if faced with a board layout not in the database, you would have to use your own intuition. That, unfortunately, must be learnt and cannot be downloaded.
  
  If you downloaded games from chess computers too, you could play at a higher level than any human, however new board states would again throw you off since you would have to process the board yourself and not rely on the database.
  
  So I guess the answer is that if you downloaded a database of all grandmaster and computer games you could theoretically beat any grandmaster as long as you repeat a game in which the side you are playing as won. Any divergence into a new line will make the database obselete.
  
  As for the tablebase, you would have to hold your ground against your opponent until there were 7 pieces left, and then you would be able to spot the best move for the rest of the game. The issue here is that with 7 pieces left, most grandmasters are nearly flawless in their endgames anyway, and unless you enter the endgame with a small advantage you will be pretty much equal, even with machine skill.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Very thoughtful answer. And yes I would love to be able to fully play and comprehend every move played in a TCEC database! )). But the thing is, if you could remember over 6.5 million games, then couldn't you use ideas from some of those games for when you get out of 'theory'? You just kind of know what move must be played, because you have mountains and mountains of patterns stored in your brain?  
  > **username_1**: "as long as you repeat a game in which the side you are playing as won" -- good luck with that; almost all games deviate from what was played before pretty quickly.  
  > **username_3**: @username_1 that was my point. it's not gonna happen.  
  > **username_3**: @SorinSolberg You said "if we downloaded a gigantic database". This means that you would still have to interpret the information yourself. Sure, you could make educated moves by looking at similar positions in grandmaster games, however people already do that. The reason this isn't effective is because one position can never be directly compared to another. There is always some quirk 8 moves down the line which makes this position different, and makes the best move different.  
  > **username_0**: I agree. Does that mean tactics training isn't super effective? These databases are LOADED with tactics, and people say to train tactics for pattern recognition.  
  > **username_3**: @SorinSolberg In my opinion, tactics training helps you to recognise when you can use tactics, however it depends on the situation as to whether you should use that tactic. In cases where a tactic is available and useful, someone who has practised tactics will be better at spotting the tactic and evaluating whether to use it. Someone who has not done this may not even spot the tactic. I think that tactics training is useful to let you process board states faster, however it will not improve your playing by a considerable amount once you get past the "beginner" level of chess.  
  > **username_0**: Yup I agree. Openings and studying the middle and endgame positions that arise out of that opening (and mostcimportantly, studying how to punish bad openings) have actually helped me more than tactics for OTB. By the way, wouldn't a database help you punish a bad opening like the Latvian Gambit or get through like maybe the King's gambit without ever having to study it?  
  > **username_3**: @SorinSolberg yep, in that case the database would help. With openings, the number of possible board positions is more limited and certain openings are commonly played. As soon as a game goes outside of theory, it becomes increasingly more unlikely that another game has been played the same way. Because of this, i do not think that a game database would be useful for middle and end games.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-07-28. Score: 3
  
  It would hardly help, because **chess is not a game of knowledge**. It's a game of skill. It wouldn't be much different from "downloading" video of all football games ever and expecting to play like Messi.
  
  To play strong chess, you need to be able to find the best move in a position you've never seen before, that usually has never been played before.
  
  Yes, pattern recognition is a big part of it -- but you'll still need to know *why* those patterns work, *why* moves were played and others weren't, and be apply to apply that knowledge to new positions. Just knowing the old games instead of having them in a database isn't that much help. And there are still lots of positions where pattern recognition *isn't* the important thing, but rather exact calculation.
  
  Tablebases are different matter, because they contain *everything* when the number of pieces is small enough, and the moves they contain are perfect. If this player reaches a winning position that is in the database, he'll always win it. That's much better than human players manage. But he'll have to reach those positions first...
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thank you. I agree, Chess is a game of skill and not so much knowledge. When Igor Smirnov was an IM, he was able to skillfully understand positions even though his knowledge was far inferior from his old GM coach's level. Smirnov would actually win most of his practice games I think. I like your football comparison by the way. But okay here is my next question; why does Carlsen and other top GMs study and memorize games? Carlsen memorized 30000 games, and in an interview he said that he already knows what to do, but spends time verifying his moves.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2017-07-28. Score: 2
  
  I don't think it'll help, unless you download the Stockfish engine (but not the database). You can't win a game by just checking the database, you'll need the understand the moves. There's no point with a 7-men tablebase if you miss a simple tactic in a new position not in the database.
  
  I'm convinced I can defeat a FIDE 1400 player, even if the player is allowed to search the database during the game. I'm happy to allow my opponent unlimited access to 7-men tablebase. That wouldn't make any difference.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thank you. But then why does Magnus Carlsen have 30000 games memorized? There are recipes, especially at the top level, although I guess a database doesn't account for calculation and move evaluation.  
  > **username_4**: @SorinSolberg I never mentioned Carlsen memorized 30000 games.  
  > **username_0**: Yeah I know. My point is, if memorizing a game database isn't so helpful, then why do GMs bother to study and memorize chess games?  
  
  ---
  
  