certainly interesting, stikes me as half way between cult and elitist (both of which are based on unsound assuptions of being special), but maybe there is a good reason, maybe there are lots of cheats online.. Please could someone 'on the inside' keep us informed.
Thanks
Johny
Greetings, Brian!
I have played several members of the CoT OTB group, and they were willing to play me, even though I am not a member of that group. To be honest, I tend to agree with their views of not playing a game with the assistance of anything not allowed in an over-the-board tournament game; e.g., no use of databases, books, other outside reasearch materials or aids; and obviously, no use of chess engines. But, like I said, I am not a member of that group (and, to be honest, don't wish to be), and most of the people with whom I have played don't know that I tend to agree with their views, even though I am not a member. (The only exception is that I am a member of the Tally Group of Non-Users (I don't remember the name exactly, but something like that), which is made up of people who don't use databases when they play a game. But even with this exception, I think most of the CoT players I have played don't know I am a member of that group, either.)
Perhaps you came across a member who feels so strongly about this view, that they refuse to play opponents unless they are as sure as they can be that the other person is not using any of these aids; and for them, the best way to determine that, is if they are members of the CoT, themselves; assuming, of course, that people in the group do not, in actuality, use such aids. Who knows?
Take care,
George
Hi George,
Thank you for your comments, George. My own view is that I play my own game whatever. I do not know anything about chess programmes or chess engines that tell you what the best move is in any situation, nor do I want to know. But if an opponent is using these things then he/she is only cheating himself/herself. It certainly does not harm me. So I trust everyone. Everyone is in my circle of trust. What else can you do? If the members of COT want to have opponents who never use any kind of 'help' how can they check this? Just because I say I am as innocent as the day is long does not mean I am. So all we can do is play and hope our opponents are honourable.
Well said, Brian. 
Recemtly I came across a member who absolutely refused to play with anyone who was not a member of the Circle of Trust. I understand that the Circle of Trust consists of a goup which does not want to associate with anyone who might be 'seeking an unfair advantage in order to win'. It reminds me of my early schooldays when the small group of 'nice' children refused to associate wth the large group of 'not very nice' children. Am I missing something important here? Or are they?
Who cares? Each to their own.
I'm a member of The Circle of Trust and am quite happy with it. I'm sure some members only want "CoT" games, but when I glance thru member's games there's probably more non-member games being played. Elitist would not be a term I'd use with CoT (see my rating), we're small just to keep things manageable. I very much agree with "to each his own", now you know mine!
Yeah, I have to weigh in on this too, as a branch member of the CoT. Being in that group doesn't mean radical adherence - in games against non-CoT members I play more normally (like, I'll dip into the analysis board or game explorer if it's non-CoT)- but if it's ever one of my CoT brothers, they get the full letter of the law, which is nice.
They also understand that we all have to put energy into other things, ie. running the groups you've made or what have you. It's a little delicate getting in (understandably), but once you are, they're lenient like a family. Like Atomicchicken said, to each their own - they aren't putting you out for their organisation, and I really enjoy the interior banter - there's some clever guys and gals in that group that really make it more than a legalistic adherence, you know?
Most of us do play with everyone who crosses our paths, though, once again - we all get to use this site as we see fit - accept, decline challenges, join groups, add friends, block users, the whole beautiful customizability of chess.com.
So, really, rather than publically moan about how you encountered one player who wouldn't play you or some such, well, I have good news for you: there's like, how many thousand? willing to.
The concept of CoT is a great one and I applaud them for their efforts and desire for a game of correspondance chess that feels like an OTB game.
I have always stated that I don't use books, computers (except to analyze a game after playing it) when I play online. My reasoning is simple: I cannot use them when playing OTB games/Tournaments at the chess club. My game slowly improves with study and play. I prefer it that way since I know more where I stand with a true rating of my play. I respect and admire The Circle of Trust folks. As for not playing with COT members, I'll play with anyone, even if they're using a computer. I played a game against someone that I am fairly certain was using a computer for assistance (on another site). I managed to win the game. How? Because I was able to throw a curve ball here and there that required too much time on their parts to analyze the more. Here's a guideline for anyone using a compter to cheat: Don't set the analyzing depth too high. When you do, it not only takes forever to analyze your opponent's move, but you'll stand a 72.34% chance of error in your response. The reason for the error percantage has to do with abstract thinking on the part of human players. Of course, if you've solved this issue when you cheat you have only cheated yourself. How? The ability to do this kind of thinking is the kind of thinking required for playing great chess. If you had only put that time into playing and reading up on the game, you wouldn't have to cheat. I love the game too much to cheat and honoestly, I don't see why anyone would cheat at chess. It can only come back to haunt you unless you plan on only playing on line (still, people get wise to cheating really fast and you'll make no friends). I got a bit off subject but that's par for the course in the 18 hole golf course of Hugh's brain!
I am a Cot oTB memeber and enjoy my cot games alot,more so than none cot games but i do play non cot games where i do use data base to level playing fields as such my view is as simple as;Cot is more fun but there just arn't enough members so i adapt and as such will play by the rules my opponent states -though i prefer cot otb
in esscence its a matter of choice,i choose both.
Usually forums which attack groups or other members for no reason are a waste of time, and well worth ignoring,and I dont understand how people who believe in certain principles can be regarded as elitist, maybe Brianpeter has bad memories of being last picked for teams in his early school days at Southend. 
but gramos9956 is correct in his statement "assuming, of course, that people in the group do not, in actuality, use such aids. Who knows?" and that is where the trust comes in, sure you have to play a couple of members before you can join, but that is more to see how you enjoy chess, and how you interact as much as anything elese, if Brianpeter is upset someone would not play him, that was a persons personal choice, and for a reason they believed in, not because they are a member of CoT.
I think that this says everything about COT:
"WE ARE ONLY TAKING SPONSORED APPLICANTS, YOUR APPLICATION MUST SHOW A CURRENT MEMBER WHO WILL SPONSOR YOU, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DELETED."
So, I set up a group, I add my dummy friends to it and then I will also add some fouls only if they pay me. Smart, isn't it?
Seems that this place is beggining to look more and more like a pigstry.
P.S. is begging allowed on the streets of Australia?
Ok, please name the players there that you think are dummy accounts?
You're wrong.
My, costelus isn't over-reacting at all to the fact that there is a group in existence that doesn't affect him whatsoever.
p.s. is being classy not allowed in Romania?
Tunatin, what do you mean by stringent? Could you be more specific please.
Thanks for explaining. I'm still curious about this "sponsoring". What do you mean by sponsoring?
I see. Well as you said they can do whatever they like in their group. But it is in my oppinion a bit of a strange procedure.
Rael: yes, I'm not "classy". I do think that setting up a group and requiring others to pay a fee for joining that group is WRONG! And NOT FAIR!
Recemtly I came across a member who absolutely refused to play with anyone who was not a member of the Circle of Trust. I understand that the Circle of Trust consists of a goup which does not want to associate with anyone who might be 'seeking an unfair advantage in order to win'. It reminds me of my early schooldays when the small group of 'nice' children refused to associate wth the large group of 'not very nice' children. Am I missing something important here? Or are they?