Permissible resoruces in Daily Chess games?

This is not an anti-cheating rant (a subject that has been exhastively covered in these forums), rather a question of using resources in turn based chess. I'm playing an opponant who played 1. c4, at which point I was consumed by panic. What the hell do you play against 1. c4? So I consulted the opening explorer, which informed me that the most common response was 1...Nf6, and the opening is the English, which I suppose could transpose into a multiplicity of openings.

Armed with my new defense, I played the move, until it occured to me that I might be cheating. Is it not morally questionable to refer to the book mid game? What is to stop me from just following through the winning moves of the opening expolorer to every move my opponant makes?

I think it's fairly obvious that using an engine is cheating, but an opening book? I would be grateful if chess.com could explain to me the precise rule regarding useage of the opening explorer, or if anyone else has any thoughts. One thought of mine was that, as a paying member, I have access to the complete opening database, something a non-paying member would not have, which could constitute an unfair advantage.

Am I a cheat?

ED.

ur allowed to use books...i think

ED you are what you are dude. Don't let labels get you down. If you're a natural born cheat then so be it!

...what??

 Lol, I guess I am. Alas, my chess.com account is not long for this world...

 You're not understanding the question, which is: Is using an opening book cheating? Please don't turn my post into your soapbox.

Using an opening book is not cheating within the rules of this site.

As far as I am aware the rules of this site allow the use of opening books but chess engines to calculate your moves are not allowed. On a personal note I would rather that people weren't allowed to use opening books during the game but rather could refer to them after the game was over to see how they did and where they possibly went wrong. My opening play is average and at times it can be frustrating to think that someone you are playing is getting an advantage before they have even had to try to work out a move for themselves. I don't really see how it is different getting your move from an opening book than from a chess engine. Either way it's not you coming up with the move and whether it is the 2nd or 22nd move in the game you should have to come up with the idea yourself!

Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong. In plain English, it is a person's inner sense of what is right or what is wrong morally. It leads to feelings of remorse when one does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when one's actions conform to our moral values. It is also the attitude which informs one's moral judgment before performing any action. The extent to which such moral judgments are based in reason has been a matter of controversy almost throughout the history of Western philosophy.

 That was my feeling; I think it is a practice I shall refrain from in the future, regardless of the rules. Surely a player could just open the book and follow through with the highest percentage moves in response to what an opponant plays. Plus, such practice offers nothing in terms of learning about the game. Maybe it might not be against the rules, but perhaps it should be.

Rolef: The instant pang of conscience I got after my actions was enough, I won't do it again. It just seems odd that such activity could be legal.

For the record, consulting books, Games Explorer, or other databases during a game is NOT cheating for online chess (it IS cheating in Live Chess). As far as the morality question, this is correspondance chess, from the beginnng of correspondance chess, players have been allowed to research their moves. Online Chess here is the same thing, we allow research, which allows you to learn better while you play. If you are not comfortable with that, that is fine, and you are welcome to refrain from using the research tools available to you. But others who use them while playing you are not cheating.

Baseballfan - Thank you for the clarification. Consulting databases is therefore a technically legal, but morally dubious activity.

I'm not sure I'd put it like that. That makes it sound like "Well, you *CAN* do it, but, it's probably not so good if you do". That's not the attitude that should be conveyed, IMO. It's more like, "It's legal. If you don't want to do it, fine, but there's nothing wrong with it if someone else does."

If one chooses, for whatever reason, not to consult books or db’s that is their choice but it is unrealistic to expect everybody to refrain from doing so. The rules allow it; always have; always will; this is not OTB chess.

Not everybody playing CC is trying to learn something. Many are expert and master level players; they aren’t trying to learn how to play chess. They already know.

See http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17&nav=0,6

For me, using databases and opening books and so on is more or less the _reason_ for playing online chess; it's the advantage of this form of chess over live chess. I use online chess to research openings, to see what people actually play and what I should do against that. It's the default way to play.

OK, I accept all of the above comments; consultation of the opening database is perfectly legal.

But is it worth considering that the rules of correspondance chess are behind the time? CC chess has been played for hundreds of years, and no doubt when the rules were cidfied, it seemed perfectly reasonable to allow consultation of resources. I expect part of the rationale for allowing it was the idea that it was going to happen anyway, was completely ungovernable and so might as well be allowed. But before the computer revolution, any player would only be able to refer to material he would have tracked down himself. Nowadays, vast openings databases are available at the touch of a button from a myriad of sources.

Imagine the scenario: I, as a paying member with full access to the database, am playing a non paying member. He plays 1. e4, and in a seperate window I have the database, which tells me by far the most popular response is 1...c5, so that is what i play. I know very little of the sicilian, but who cares? I'm not doing the thinking. And so it goes on, with each turn being responded to by which of black's reply has the highest winning percentage. No doubt white will make some positional blunder, not being privvy to the data, and the moves in the database will all start having 70% or 80% win rates for black. Presumably at some stage the game will become unique, and the book will no longer be relevan, but by that time the material/strategic advantage is so great that the win is easy.

So I take on board that using the database is not cheating; I'm just saying that the rules of correspondance chess perhaps need to be reviewed in light of the fact that such a vast database is so easily accessable to everyone.

streetfighter - One must steer clear of such slanging matches. I feel like I have raised a point of genuine concern, and I appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments (I felt I had to rebuke a member for misusing this post above). The trouble with such touchy issues is that emotion and bitterness can cloud the issue.

Well, those are the rules chess.com puts in place. Some people use it, some people don't. I use these databases as a learning tool, not to tell me what move to make next. Sometimes, when an opponent playes a variation I'm unfamiliar with I check the database. But I generally use it outside of games.

No, using the database is a skill. Blindly following the percentage will lead nowhere -- a move that scores a high percentage can well be a blunder, or caused entirely by mistakes both sides made in a faraway endgame. They're very misleading.

Besides, once you do finally leave known games, you'll have two disadvantages: first, you have a psychological disadvantage because you believe your opponent must have done something wrong, for no reason; and secondly, your opponent will know _why_ he played those moves and will already be aware of all the traps and tactics in the position, because he has already spent time thinking; you, on the other hand, are quite likely to go wrong on the first move you'll have to invent yourself. Perhaps you've followed the database to a position that is very hard to understand, and calls for only moves on your part.

Also, just that people can't use this site's database doesn't mean they won't have a much better database and two shelves of books available :-)

Very interesting point Scarblac, I had not thought of the database being such a double-edged sword.

If, as you say, using the database is a skill, do you find it improves your OTB chess?

Thanks for the warning Streetfighter! I shall stay here where things are nice and calm and reasonable. (Quick sidenote streetfighter - what is a 'CM'?)