Databases - what is allowed?

OK confession time -- everyone, what's your self delusion?

I think mine might be that arguing on the Internet actually accomplishes something.

Well, that is what I do in live and OTB as well. I don't understand (it doesn't seem coherent to me) your acceptance of books and human DB but not engline DB... I have read the entire thread, and I don't believe that a line can really be drawn.

This is opposed to richie_and_oprah, whose position I fully appreciate and stand apart from only because those aren't the rules of this site (also his completely unnecessary inflamatory language).

@richie_and_oprah, I actually think that I almost completely agree with you, except that the rules of this site make what you want unfeasible. The main point is that "Online Chess" here is a variant of chess that isn't traditional chess, much like, say, Chess960. It's a fine game, but it just isn't the same thing. I'll play their game, whereas you'd prefer chess. I actually prefer chess, too, but don't mind playing both.

I also have to agree with Ozzie about the vast differences between IMs and 2200s, having friends at both levels, though I am quite impressed at your level of play, richie_and_oprah, it is far better than mine, at least for now. Hopefully someday I'll rise to that level.

Not to nitpick... but I'll nitpick. 2400 FIDE is one of the requirements of the IM title, but of course 2400 FIDE does not get you the IM title. (2300 FIDE does get you the FM title). Also, you would want to know how many of your opponents had the IM or GM title. It used to be the case, don't know anymore though, that USCF > FIDE in ratings.

1. I must admit that it is impossible to discerne between cyborg/human databases. And now I understand why there are players here, at chess.com, who play above GM level and do not have the accounts closed: they use cyborg databases. If one checks the move they make with an engine, these moves will appear rather OK, but not as the first choices. In fact, no matter what depth you go, an engine will never make these moves (which are in fact good, but it cannot choose them).

2. I also understand that what is played here is not chess, but some strange game which uses the chess pieces and the board. Therefore, I will finish my current games and I will probably stop playing.

3. The biggest delusion : I thought that it was chess :(( Now I can see clearly it is not. That's why players like Richie or Ozzie, with 2200+ ratings, are not at the top of the ratings lists and will never be. That's why a player with no ELO can score 3.5/6 (no defeats) against a GM like J. Becerra. 

Quitter

The notion that it is not chess is ridiculous.  You can argue the semantics all you like, what is played here is chess with the option to use a set of approved tools to aide your game-play.  You just happen to have chosen a narrow and convenient definition of chess to supports your worldview.

I'd stress again, before seeing anyone go, that there are sub-communities on this site such as the Circle of Trust group that I linked to earlier that provide exactly the type of game-play you seem to be looking for.

Generally speaking, I don't have such problems with master strength players, especially those who have lived on the streets hustling $$.

To me, IM strength means a level of play which is typical of IMs. Generally speaking, USCF 2200-2300 are not IM strength. If they were IM strength, their rating would increase _very_ quickly.

I was wondering when you'd respond to my note!

I'm ok with the notion that plenty of turn-based chess games on here are correspondence chess and not "otb chess" which one can refer to generally as "chess".

Granted - plenty - a LOT - of the games on here that are turn-based are absolutely "chess".

Especially at the high level here, it's not "chess" as defined above, if you can use all these aids.

Some men also call it sex, although they used the "tool" of somebody else. And find a lot of joy in it. 

If I choose not to use the open auction rule in Monopoly, as so many do, does it cease to be Monopoly?

Really?? I simply cannot imagine that someone can play OTB style, destroy all database users and cyborgs alike, and reach a rating of 2800+. I just simply cant', I'm sorry :(

Please do not post usernames in this forum.

Otherwise they make institute a new rule that we may not talk about this topic anywhere, instead of restricting it to this forum.

So start a group of your own.  This is not an insurmountable problem.

What exactly is 'chess', then?

OK, I edited it Ozzie. But I had no intention to say something negative about that user. 

I agree, but since football is a game of two teams, should we take out the fans? After all, the fans in (america) football have WAY more of an effect over the result than ANY DB will have.

What you guys fail to notice is that most people couldn't play without outside 'assistance' even if they tried. Take me for example, I play the KG whenever possible. At the same time, I'm still learning the opening, so I'm always looking at GM games, and reading about the various lines. How can I possibly play any KG games without being affected by my learning?

Isn't that the textbook definition of a good human move?  If you can't find an engine that will recommend the move no matter how long you search, don't you have to assume that the move in question isn't an engine move and didn't come from a "cyborg database"?

I have to say that it seems like you're miffed because your theory about everyone rated 2500+ might not be true.

I think the idea is to return to a more traditional style where you buy a book someone wrote about it, read it, analyze it, talk about it with your friends, play it against your friends, play it in blitz, in longer games, see what works, see what doesn't. Get a feel for the position.

Then you'll be ready to play it in an OTB tourney.

Or if you're the adventurous type, you can just play it in an OTB tourney without all that stuff above. :-)

This whole thread seems rather Ludditial.

No, there is a subtle difference here. It is a move made by the human, but the engine calculated it (after the human introduced that move) and saw it is good. The human could never calculate all the way through to see that the move is actually good, the computer could not find the move alone, except for going to very high depths (which might take ages). A human player, even if it is much weaker than an engine, can increase the strength of the engine. That's what the modern correspondence chess (ICCF) is about.