This is a simple opinion question.  Where do you draw the line for what is and is not cheating in regard to studying chess.  Many times I am in the middle of studying or have been desiring to study a position or scenario when it comes up in one of my games.  I don't want to put off this study to the end of the game (which with my schedule can at times be very long) but if I study the position of a current game I feel quilty.  I have generally taken the approach that as long as it is my oponents move and I have not seen their move I am at liberty to read up and see what is common and the ins and outs of a position.  This however also seems close to the line and I am seeking y'alls opinions as to this delima and how each of you stay clear of cheating and still study what you want when you want.  Thanks

sorry - cheating

I don't think it's cheating. I believe that a general rule of thumb for cheating is that it's cheating if something else does the thinking for you. Since this is simply knowledge you're acquiring and using yourself, I don't think it's cheating. Now if you say, "Okay, let's look up rook vs. rook and bishop endings and see what I should do!" that may be a different story. If you just happen to come across it, I wouldn't consider it cheating. Just my opinion, I'm sure there's an FAQ but I can't find the FAQ section on this website. =(

Pretty much, if you don't get assistance from 1) a chess program to analyze your current game or to help you choose a move or 2) another person, your on safe ground.  However, while the use reference material is perfectly legal, some people don't believe in it. If you feel uncomfortable using such things as opening books or master games while your game is still in motion, simply ask your opponent if he objects - you don't have to ask, but it might help to ease your concience.

I'm mostly repeating what Batgirl said -- the rules for Online chess at chess.com are clear and can be found: here.  It is absolutely acceptable to consult any "static" source -- books, databases, articles, websites... what have you. It is not acceptable to consult your uncle Freddy the Grandmaster, or your chessplaying program: Fritz, Chessmaster, Crafty, Rybka etc.

As batgirl has mentioned -- There are people who just can't believe consulting books, databases etc. can properly be called chess (it's sometimes called correspondence chess -- there are different rules in place among different correspondence chess communities -- and in one form or another has a long tradition) and the anti-database folks have formed some groups which don't consult outside material, and which in general try to be as much like slow OTB (over the board) chess as possible. 

In my and others opinion, studying postions and learning about them for a game is one of the things CC (correspondence chess) is all about. You are miles away from the official fine line to cheating. The line you choose to draw for yourself is a different matter.

I may be wrong, but i feel that looking at an endgame book in correspondence chess to see how to play a particular ending is no different then using books for the opening. Just my opinion.

 True, true. Ultimately, the player is still doing the thinking.

At any given time I have numerous ongoing games here that are in various stages and that may have been started with any number of openings.  Taken to the extreme, the notion that books or databases are disallowed could be construed to mean that I cannot study chess at all so long as I have an active correspondence game.  This simply isn't realistic and the fact is that the benefit derived from this study, directed or otherwise, still requires the player to understand the moves he makes in order to be successful.  This is the key distinction between these kinds of resources and other disallowed outside advice where the "thinking" is not done by the player.

Read away.

Your opponent will learn to defend book moves...good practice for both sides

oh..and it's not cheating. 

There is a fine line with computer analysis though. Since I use computer analysis running along when I'm looking at opening lines to play, which is something I do a lot. Then a new game can start and have the same opening (of course, since I like to play openings that I'm currently looking at -- that's a reason why I play chess.com games). When am I just looking at an opening, and when is it the actual game I'm doing computer analysis on? When the game is at move 4, can I still use computer analysis on a position that could occur after move 10? What about when the game is on move 8?

Luckily, most games deviate so quickly that it's never an issue for long. The key is to not let the game dictate which variations I'm looking at, and once it does, stop using computer analysis.

Now that IS cheating -_-

What is, exactly?

I'm talking about a situation where I've seen a game in a book with, say, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 Ne6 10.Rc1 b6!?, and I'm looking at this position with a book, my database, Rybka, etc, completely independent of chess.com. This cannot be cheating, it's just chess study.

Now I also have chess.com games constantly starting. When should I stop using my computer on that particular position? After 1.e4? When we enter an Accelerated Dragon? Where is the line?

I appreciate the posts.  I guess my hang up is that a book is a lot like consulting a person, which has much more knowledge than myself and the fact that I benefit and play a better game is undeniable.  However on the flip side we should all be trying to improve, and the fact that we are all trying to do that is taken for granted... I take it then that the consensus is that reading books is not cheating even if it coincides with some of your games but that using a computer is questionable.  It is a matter of is the person benefiting and learning and making his own decisions on each move or are they having their moves dictated

Firstly; it's not a matter of concensus, it's a matter of site rules. Other people, computer engines and endgames tablebases are out, databases and books are in.

And in my opinion it's not a matter of trying to learn. People don't use books during games in order to learn, they use books in order to have a better chance of winning the game, and fully expect their opponents to do the same. It's part of the game. Any learning that happens to be beneficial to OTB play is secondary.

In traditional correspondence chess, anything goes. The point is to find the absolute best moves no matter what. And they don't do that in order to improve their OTB game...

That may be so Scarblac but the context of my original post was that of learning and study that coincided with games currently being played.  The purpose being to learn...

Uhm, yes. Seems I got too addicted to just answering the newest post and lost sight of the topic of the thread. Perhaps I should concentrate on work :-)

if someone beats me in a game, i don't care if they did it alone, or as a proxy - if i learn something (and i try, believe me) from a loss, it's a victory.