user13817: 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.

user825: 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.

user10887: 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.

user924: 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...

13817: <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>
 825: <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>
 10887: <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>
 924: <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>
