Feature Request: Fully Integrated Game Explorer

I believe they call themselves the Circle of Trust.

i dont use anything during play but I am always trying to learn and the tools are allowed so i dont begrudge anyone the use of them. i have used game explorer to think through how i want to approach an opening or how to respond to specific types as part of set positions so you may find that to be inappropriate use under your moral code. however you play the game, enjoy (unless you are using an engine!)

its not only circle of trust who dont use databases, i venture most of my opponents have not

You're probably right, amac7079 - but there is a difference between not using something on principle, and just not happening to use it.  I don't happen to use databases the vast majority of the time (and probably my opponents are the same), but I have no principled opposition to it myself.

Call me old fashioned.  I don't use anything but a "little" thought and human ability while I am playing.  I will never be a GM nor raise the bars that high for myself.  I just want to learn the game and play it with friends who love the game of chess for what it is...the greatest game ever devised to test the true "human" abilities of two minds.  If, by chance, I begin to see my skill and knowledge of the game grow as a direct result of persitent play and study then I'll relay that info to my little ones along with the love of the game.

SirKnight, I'm not in it for ratings or even the most wins.  If you can produce a group of truely honest players that want to play for the love of the game...sign  me up.

Good luck to all

I use external opening material during games, but never to simply choose the best scoring moves.  I'll often want to understand the basic ideas behind a given opening and I find that the pace of turn based chess affords me the opportunity to learn the variations of new openings and direct them to the type of middle game I like to play.  The idea is that once I've played a new opening this way, the result should be repeatable without having to repeat the external consult -- in that sense, I feel that it's more a case of learning openings and their underlying concepts on the fly than it is a simple rote database consult.  That being said, one game in a particular opening often doesn't cement the ideas to my satisfaction, but over time I find the method works.

On the flip side, I almost never use the analysis board -- I find that nothing I do with it is repeatable on the board, and in fact I ultimately feel that depending on it is a liability to my overall play.  I don't begrudge anyone else's right or desire to use it however.

The consistent theme in these two choices of approach in my correspondence play is that I'm striving to improve my play overall in the long term -- not necessarily to win the individual game in the short.

I'm with you, TheGrobe.  Databases do not lend themselves well to short-term advantages anyways, so people really shouldn't be concerned about it being a form of cheating.  In fact, I'd be hard pressed to point to a game where use of a database in that particular game led to a win for me!  Which, of course, is not in fact the goal, as you point out.

Nimzo33 wrote: (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-tally-of-database-users--non-users?quote_id=1541513&page=5)

a.) Just to clarify, the use of databases is in no way cheating. both players are allowed to use it. Software is soo much different from books and the game database. With Chess Software, the player really doesn't play anymore(the computer does... which is bad), but using a legit aid actually takes proper application. Who cares if your opponent know 20 moves into the Ruy lopez when he doesn't know jack squat on how to continue after.

b.) Database help should be considered a "good" thing about correspondence chess, allowing us to learn while we are playing a game; think of it as hands-on training. Without it, correspondence chess would be nothing more that a reeeally long game of chess... game 120 anyone?

c.) Using the database doesn't mean you're gonna win. Its laughable to see people blaming their losses on the opponent using a chess game database when they probably lost from a blunder or a strategic mistake. If you play solid moves, an opening can't beat you, you're doing something else wrong; worst case scenario is that you're opponent gets his "theoretical plus", which isn't exactly bad either since it gives you practice for OTB games against booked-up opponents.

d.) One issue I've seen is that people feel it's unfair that an opponent can see through his "opening traps", and well... GET OVER IT. Better players will never fall for silly opening traps, so it'll be good to practice what happens if they "know". ok ok ok, takes out all the fun out the game, huh? Frankly, I personally wouldn't feel good trying to win games via a silly trap (all you'd get is rating...)

e.) Why strain your memory when you don't have to? The materials there, why ignore it and try to stretch your brain(memory) in a game that allows the help. Of course, you could argue that you would not understand the material if you just "use" it, and well... WTF!? thats not the database's fault, thats the fault of the person using the database. Learn from the aid, understand it during the game, don't scorn it.

f.) I don't see why people keep comparing using aid to real quizzes and such, which makes it seem like cheating. Correspondence chess is really like open book quizzes; its a learning experience, and its up to the quiz takers whether or not they will apply what they learned for bigger (non-note) tests. Not using aid in correspondence chess is like trying to memorize info for an open book quiz... which is fine, but don't scoff at the one's who decide to use their notes. One could also compare Corr. Chess to a research paper; you wouldn't create it with the information you have when it's assignned, right? no, that'll be a low quality paper; you're allowed to work on it at home, using information from other sources, to raise the quality of the paper, and like in corr. chess the aid should be seen as a way to elevate one's game, not as something "unfair".

Well put art.

Yes, Nimzo33 expressed it very well. (I take the credit for reproducing his comments.)

Ahh, my mistake. :)  Well put Nimzo33

you do know that you can look at GM games separately from the chess.com players universe?

You can, but a lot of the games have sub-GM players.

Meaning that GM vs Non-GM games are mixed together with GM vs GM games? 

Presumably, if this were the case, inferior moves (presumably by the non-GM side) would still show poor win percentages for the side making them despite a potentially high frequency of ocurrence.  As a result, it strikes me that as long as the quality of play is of a sufficient level on at least one side of the board, the combination of frequency of ocurrence and win/lose/draw distribution should still be sufficient to formulate an informed understanding of the available lines.

Yes.  I remember seeing games with sub-2000 players on each side though.

Hmmm, if there is not a minimum quality of play standard on at least one side of the board then that could certainly undermine the value of the statistics.

Is it cheating if I accept a game titled "No databases, no opening books" and then use a DB during it?

:-)

Cheating, no.  Ethical...?

Is it cheating if you accept a game titled "With databases, and opening books" and then DON'T use a DB during it?

No, but if the title were "Mandatory database and opening book use -- objective is to lose the game" you might be on shaky ground.