Author: Louis Fagliano
Date: 12:30:01 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 15:21:55, Norm Pollock wrote: >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? It was Pierre Bourget who posted "0-1900".
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.