Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

So I know it's completely legal to use a database in correspondence chess, but I don't know if you guys think it's fair, because I admitted I used a database to someone and he now refuses to play me. Thoughts?

Is a database different from using a computer?  I would say that using a computer would be wrong, but is a database also a computer?  Or is it just looking up prior games?  Please tell me, because I'm not sure!  Thanks!  :)  Jason

Of course it's fair. Both players can use a database, nobody gets an unfair advantage. If he refuses to play you, just play someone else.

Using a computer to calculate moves dynamically is against the rules. Looking up moves from static sources is within the rules. It doesn't matter if the static sources are accessed using a computer.

No, there is not an unwritten rule about using a database in correspondence chess.

Well, what if somebody had a database of all posible positions? I know it's impossible to get, but they wouldn't even need to know how to play chess. I think you should avoid using them.

Opening databases are allowed in correspondence chess (though not live) provided they do not include any kind of engine analysis data.

Endgame tablebases are not allowed period.

It's fair as long as both players are allowed access to the same resources, if one chooses not to utilize them it doesn't make it unfair, just imbalanced.

I would not play with someone using a database.

But the point of correspondence is to give you more time to think. If you use a database it's like cheating in a way. It's like saying i can use a database to get through the opening in over the board chess

I can acces a database of games played by the strongest chess engines and it contains more than 5 million games. Is that database also legal?

In my case I never use database. What if I decide to use one database just in say a couple of games, maybe important to me, because it the final stage of a tournament for example, is it ok?

You're right to mention tablebases. I take back my imprecise wording about static resources.

In my mind, I prefer of my opponent used his brain when he play. Unless both sides agree to one side using a database, I don't think it should be allowed. And use the database for future studies of games

The difference is that in correspondence chess it's explicitly allowed while in OTB chess it's explicitly forbidden.

@YamiNoGame64, one of the reasons that make correspondence chess such a unique learning tool is that database use is allowed.

Anyway, sooner or later both players will be on their own and the player who mindlessly followed a book variation without understanding what's going on will lose immediately.

Sred wrote:

@YamiNoGame64, one of the reasons that make correspondence chess such a unique learning tool is that database use is allowed.

Anyway, sooner or later both players will be on their own and the player who mindlessly followed a book variation without understanding what's going on will lose immediately.

But in my opinion, it's like playing machine vs human already. Already from the beginning the person with the database can have good moves only during the first lets say 10-15 moves, while his opponent has a chance to blunder at any time. An opening advantage can sometimes be crucial

When you play a correspondence game you are agreeing to the rules of correspondence games, which allow the use of database.  If you want to agree to something else with your opponent ahead of time, that would be up to you and your opponent.

Then do not play correspodence chess. Those are the rules. You are currently playing 14 of them. All of your opponents are within their rights to use these databases.

Well, you can also use a database. Your opponent has no advantage.

If you don't like it, don't play correspondence chess (or play against friends who agree not to use a db).

It is not cheating at all. It is part of the rules.