Its The exact same! except instead of pouring over books to get theory you are pouring over DB's containing THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION. Heck some DB's ARE books that have been converted over for the new era. The only way this effects chess at all is if you use an engine DURING the game. Anything else is just studying.
...
I would caution against blindly considering databases and books equivalent. Search-ability aside, there are databases that are actually equivalent (if not superior) to engines. Namely, endgame table-bases.
These are basically a subset of positions for which chess has actually been solved with the aide of engines and as a result can be played perfectly based on these databases. There is an important distinction, however, between endgame table-bases and engine versus engine databases such as Costelus has described. That is that endgame table-bases are exhaustive, and cannot be taken out of book -- they will always provide the best possible move no matter what the opposing player does. This is simply not the case for engine versus engine databases as the sheer complexity of chess prohibits anything close to resembling an exhaustive examination of the possibilities for the stage of the game where they are relevant.
The good news is that the use of these table-bases is also extremely easily detected.
And Before DB's there were end game books containing the same positions and the same information for the most part. A DB doesn't make recommendations it stores large amounts of data, so that it can be recalled later. NO DB IS SUPERIOR TO AN ENGINE BECAUSE DB's DONT MAKE CHOICES they display all the games from a position, who played. what moves were played. when, and the outcome. An engine will say (-+3.04)12...Nxc3 13 dxc3 Qe2+ for example. It doesn't care if no game in your DB has played that way. A huge problem with this logic is that again, A LOT of DB's are books that have been converted for training.
Yes, Gonnosuke. That is my argument. Eliminate all databases. Stop using books during the game.
Play chess.
One need experiment and learn on their own time. It is a better honor to the game by playing it the way it was originally meant to be played, by two human beings with their own learned praxis that flows from their brains on demand and subject to the imperfectation that may happen in those moments.
This idea that there is some great "chess truth" that is being pursued by people is the silliest and most horribly disguised way to admit to the pure pleasures of mental masturbation for its own sake that I've ever seen. (not that you made this argument...yet hehe).
Why don't you play online using only Praxis? Rating concerns?
What is really to be gained (besides winning and rating points) in playing with assistance?
Sincerely asking so as to develop understanding. Who knows, you might even be the person that convinces me to change my perspectives.
My contention is that you CAN'T play chess turn-based like this. It is NOT chess. That was my reaction when I was first introduced to the site by a friend of mine. "Three days per move? That isn't chess." The clock is irreducibly a part of chess, and anything this slow, and especially when you can use an analysis board... it's irreducibly significantly different from anything like "real" chess, which is OTB. This is my contention, and this is why I play like I do. I absolutely understand and respect your position, though I think it doesn't exactly work for the slow time control, but it just doesn't work here. If you want a "praxis only" slow chess variant, you would have to prohibit note-taking and analysis boards too, and there's just no way to enforce that. It's perfectly admirable, but pragmatically, it isn't going to happen. This is the world we've been given, and I'm dealing with it how I will.
Furthermore, I see positives in it that you are apparently blind to. I quote again "This idea that there is some great "chess truth" that is being pursued by people is the silliest and most horribly disguised way to admit to the pure pleasures of mental masturbation for its own sake that I've ever seen. (not that you made this argument...yet hehe)." This incredibly provocative and rather offensive language clearly shows that you don't understand what I mean by "chess truth". This is not truth about who the best chess player is; this is truth along the lines of finding the perfect moves for a game, or refuting perhaps an entire opening system. The best example I can give for this is the refutation of the Fried Liver. This was done with computer help, as I have already admitted. But I, as I always do, played through every move. When I don't understand something the engine is saying, I play through several lines until I can understand it. The Fried Liver refutation has a handful of moves that could be found by hand, but white has so many threats, and the way in which they are parried is so non-obvious that it would take a very, very long time. But at this point, I have learned the opening myself; I could play it OTB; I understand the moves; I would relish the opportunity to play it against anyone OTB, be they my best friend, a run-of-the-mill GM, Kasparov, Anand, Rybka, you name it. I believe that I would win. Use of the engine has helped me understand the opening much better.
Modern OTB play at high levels is filled with at-home computer analysis. World championships, Over the Board, are now often decided by who has prepared their openings better at home with their team of seconds and computers. Of course there they have to remember everything, but in correspondance you can of course use notes.
Finally, this is still way different from using an engine in-game. Alternatives are left by the wayside, and furthermore most openings come to a point where there are many roughly equivalent options. This is where my analyses generally end. After that point, I'm on my own, with analysis board, pen, and paper.