Using Books & Databases for Playing Turn Based.

long live the " circle of trust OTB"

     If chess is to be considered a sport then using outside help DURING games must be ruled out.

     Chess is a mind sport, you win the game by out-thinking the opposition, just as in running you win by running further or faster than than all others. You do not win by running then getting a taxi for a bit, then running for a bit more.

     In turnbased chess on chess.com where there is a long time limit on moves players should be playing their best chess, they have lots of time to look at all the possible moves and choose one which minimises the chances of their opponents victory. Therefore it seems quite correct that ratings should be higher in turnbased chess, these ratings are going to be higher than otb ratings obviously, in otb chess u do not have 3 days to make a move!

     How can using books to help during games be considered acceptable? Using another persons knowledge to help decide which move u should make, is in my opinion cheating.

     In chess it is the individual who plays and therefore it should be the individual who wins. From the top of the chess world down this is the practice, you do not see groups of masters huddling around a single board trying to outplay the other group!

     A single game of chess is a game between two people, a battle of two players knowledge and essentially 'brains'. Using a third party is forbidden in over the board chess and so using it in online chess is very seriously questioning whether turnbased should be considered or even called chess.

Hope this all makes sense,

bleucheese

bleucheese......you have some issues

in many sports there is real time implementation of technology and information during the games which change teams and players approached during competition. i think you would be hard pressed to find any sport where athletes at the top level do not use all available information to prepare before executing action. while i dont use the aids as i work and i have too many games in progress to properly consider all positions, i do not mind what tools my opponent uses. as you rightly argue it is a knowledge battle and hopefully i am enhancing my knowledge by playing people who are using stronger positions. i am studying and i use the tools here on chess.com to enhance my skills (Tactics Trainer and Chess Mentor) but i dont really care what my opponent uses. i can only worry about the things that i control. if you want to play otb play otb but that doesnt change the dynamics or the integrity of the correspondence game that we play.

Since the use of outside sources in correspondence chess is allowed, then we just focus on things we - being the non-users of such - can control, to wit:

1.  our attitude: maintain playing in the over-the-board manner;

2.  our education: learn from the "best moves" of our opponent - whether they be coming from books, databases, softwares, or even their friends;

3.  our judgment: it's fair as it's allowed by the rules, but we stand on our own.

Let me say this. Perhaps it helps a litle bit:

1. According to the rules it is allowed to use books and databases in turn based games.

So whom you critisize? Chess.com for the rules or the members who behave according to the rules?

In my view it is a little bit "unfair" to "blame" members, who behave according to the rules. And these rules according to this point are all over the world the same  Never heard of that?

So if you do not want to use the allowed help of books and databases, so it is your free decision. But please do not "blame" others, who use that allowed help!

re 'chess' as a misnomer, i think bluecheese has proved the point. 'turn based chess' is not chess and should no longer be called 'chess'. is an alternative name proposed?

joly wrote:

re 'chess' as a misnomer, i think bluecheese has proved the point. 'turn based chess' is not chess and should no longer be called 'chess'. is an alternative name proposed?

To call it something other than chess is ridiculous.  Its a particular variant of chess - correspondence chess.  As has been pointed out many times, the rules for this site are consistent with established rules for correspondence chess.

If you do not like the rules here, stick with OTB chess.

jooking, is that a bit like Morris dancing?

How about:

1. Software-Database-Book-Users vs. OTB Fellows

2. What-Move-Does-My-Outside-Source-Say vs. Let-Me-Think-About-It-Myself

3. Dependent vs. Independent

:))

bluecheese wrote:

         Chess is a mind sport, you win the game by out-thinking the opposition, just as in running you win by running further or faster than than all others. You do not win by running then getting a taxi for a bit, then running for a bit more.

     In turnbased chess on chess.com where there is a long time limit on moves players should be playing their best chess, they have lots of time to look at all the possible moves and choose one which minimises the chances of their opponents victory. Therefore it seems quite correct that ratings should be higher in turnbased chess, these ratings are going to be higher than otb ratings obviously, in otb chess u do not have 3 days to make a move!

 Bluecheese, I agree with you. I choose not to use the databases and books during play for the reasons you stated. I think people who become dependent on the books and databases start on the road to becoming paper tigers. They look real good on paper but their OTB skills don't measure up. With that being said the rules do allow for the help to be used so they're not wrong to use them.

Monicker wrote:

joly wrote:

re 'chess' as a misnomer, i think bluecheese has proved the point. 'turn based chess' is not chess and should no longer be called 'chess'. is an alternative name proposed?

To call it something other than chess is ridiculous.  Its a particular variant of chess - correspondence chess.  As has been pointed out many times, the rules for this site are consistent with established rules for correspondence chess.

If you do not like the rules here, stick with OTB chess.

Hi Monicker, to be honest, as I attempted to indicate (perhaps obliquely) above, my opinion is that as long as everybody plays by whatever rules are collectively agreed, I don't really think it matters much what we call it.

I also don't think there are any particular rules we necessarilly should or shouldn't agree to - so if ppl are happy and agree to play turn based as is, as I currently am and as this site allows, then I really don't think there can be any wrong or right about that.

Cheers mate

I always assumed that everyone here played the same as if we were OTB.

people are so funny with their misguided "ethics".

gumpty wrote: it would be a good idea for chess.com to include info in peoples profile which indicated what assistance people are using....this way players would be able to select the opponents which they are happy to play against.

Best idea, so far.

  I ought to try that...might improve my game!!

gumpty wrote: it would be a good idea for chess.com to include info in peoples profile which indicated what assistance people are using....this way players would be able to select the opponents which they are happy to play against.

There's nothing to prevent you from putting such preference information in your profile already. For example, in my profile, I have: "I favour Quick Ending Chess (resigning when my position looks hopeless) and am not adverse to an exchange of pleasantries during the game."

Most decisions about whether to use Game Explorer as a guide to openings, or to use any other legitimate refence resource are made on a game-by-game basis. Hence, the most a profile could say is: "I sometimes use Game Explorer", or "I never use Game Explorer".