Author: Norm Pollock
Date: 12:21:55 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 12:44:47, Louis Fagliano wrote: >On January 13, 2005 at 11:51:38, Norm Pollock wrote: > >>On January 13, 2005 at 11:42:02, Pierre Bourget wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2005 at 10:46:39, Louis Fagliano wrote: >>> >>>>The number of games each year in ChessBase’s “flagship database” (their term) >>>>keeps whizzing rapidly upwards: >>>> >>>>Mega Database 1999 1.1 million games >>>>Mega Database 2000 1.4 million games >>>>Mega Database 2001 1.7 million games >>>>Mega Database 2002 2.0 million games >>>>Mega Database 2003 2.3 million games >>>>Mega Database 2004 2.6 million games >>>>Mega Database 2005 2.9 million games >>>> >>>>It’s just about 300,000 games per year. Yet if you were to collect all of the >>>>new games compiled by Mark Crowler in TWIC for one year you would end up with >>>>about 75,000 to 80,000 new games for that calendar year. Where are the extra >>>>games coming from? >>>> >>>>To me it doesn’t look like they’re coming from any good sources. >>>> >>>>Case in point: Take the classic beginner’s opening 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5. Now I >>>>would expect that in a quality or “flagship database”, there shouldn’t be any >>>>more than 5 or 6 games with that silly opening by White. >>>> >>>>I did a search to find out how many games in Mega Database 2005 started out with >>>>1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 and was shocked to find out there are 258 games!! Even worse, >>>>White actually wins 94 of those games! >>>> >>>>Want more? Well after 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 there are a flabbergasting 80 games, yes >>>>count ‘em 80, where Black replies 2... Nf6?? and loses a pawn instantly to 3. >>>>Qxe5+. >>>> >>>>Is Mega Database in danger of becoming FatBase? At least in the FatBase product >>>>they are honest enough to tell you that the games include a lot of garbage. >>>>Just because all the headers and names are consistent doesn’t mean quality if >>>>you have hundreds of games that start out with 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5. >>>> >>>>Even worse, in their search for more games regardless of how awful, they are >>>>still leaving out some quality games. In a few opening treatise’s there is >>>>occasionally a reference to a game that I cannot find in Mega Database. >>> >>>I have Big Database 2004 and I intend to get the new BD 2005.Since I am mostly >>>interested by old games ,could you tell me if there is a substantial increase >>>for the following period: >>> >>> >>>0-1900: >>>1901-1950: >>>1951-1980: >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>Pierre >> >>And what about 500bc - 1bc? Lot's of great games there too! >> >>Actually I do not believe there was a 1 bc, 0 or 1ad. I think the sequence went: >>2bc, 1, 2ad. > >Nope. It's 2 B.C., 1 B.C., 1 A.D., 2 A.D., etc. > >Too bad the rules wern't changed to modern standards until about 1400 A.D. or >so. Before that the queen could only move one square diagonally, bishops hopped >to every other square along a diagonal, pawns could not move two squares on >their first move, a stalemate was a win, and also stripping your opponent down >to a bare king was a win. > >Imagine all the great games lost to us dating back to 8000 B.C. and imagine what >CheesBase would be doing to recover all those games! I can see it now: > >Mega Database 2006 -- 17.4 million games dating back to 8500 B.C.! I can agree to: 2 B.C., 1 B.C., 1 A.D., 2 A.D., etc. So why did you have "0" before?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.