Author: Norm Pollock
Date: 12:39:12 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 15:30:01, Louis Fagliano wrote: >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". My apologies.
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.