‘Outside assistance’ in Daily games

For those who play Daily games. What are your thoughts on relying on outside assistance? To me it feels like an awful lot is allowed. Or maybe I am misinterpreting?

The official policy of chess com is:

 Source: https://support.chess.com/article/317-what-counts-as-cheating-on-chess-com

I have no comment on what’s not allowed. Seems obvious. However, not allowing help from other people seems phrased funny, but I’ll get to that.  

My question is about what is allowed. Is this fair and how much of this assistance are you using?

It is allowed to use books, lessons and videos. To me it feels like cheating to have the Gotham Chess Caro-Kann course open in a second tab to guide me on what my next move should be, assuming that’s considered video and/or Lessons. Maybe it’s okay for  the first couple of moves, but when he is covering an entire line in detail, you might as well use the engine. Additionally, most chess theory is created or tested with engines, so while using the engine is not allowed, watching a video that covers the best lines, is. Feels weird to me.

In a similar vein, it is allowed to use the opening database or game records, but it feels like cheating to me. It’s not allowed to get help from other people, but it is allowed to look up what Magnus or Hikaru played in the same position. I know they are not as good as chess engines, but in practical terms, isn’t playing what 2700 GMs play equally powerful?

I use very little outside assistance, because I play Daily specifically to develop my play , not my rating. On the other hand, if my opponents do use these resources, I’m at a significant disadvantage. What are your thoughts?

No offense but opening theory at your level does nothing.  People go out of book pretty much immediately.  And those that play book moves?  Play them out of pure memorization and don't understand the position or the "why" behind the moves.

@IMKeto's words sound about right to me -- but, still, @Duckfest raises a good point.  Using the help allowed -- even just using Opening Explorer -- makes the opening of daily games seem more like a research project than a chess game.   And, further, I guess a response to IMKeto is that sometimes when I'm stuck even at move 4 or 5, using OE can help me see viable lines.

So, I sort of agree with Duckfest -- it kind of straddles the line between cheating and using training wheels.  In my most recent OTB tournament, I played a fantastic opening (using opening principles, because I didn't know the opening (Cambridge Springs) -- I mean, I just nailed it perfectly!) until move 8, and fell for a trap and lost a piece on move 9 after making what seemed like a very natural move.  If I had had access to OE, I would have immediately noticed that my natural looking move wasn't on the list, and would have explored more deeply as to why, and I wouldn't have made that move.

My main goal is to get better at OTB.  Because I fell for that trap, it's not something I am going to forget.  It's 100 times more memorable than had I read it in a book.

All that said -- if @Duckfest doesn't use those permissible aids, then that demonstrates to me he's in it for the learning, not the wins/losses or rating points -- and he's going to learn those openings better, or more quickly, than those who do use those resources.

And to that I say: Good for you, @Duckfest, and I wish you the best!

I can tell you from experience it doest matter.  When i played daily chess i would use chessable, and after x number of moves none of the chessable courses helped as we were out of book.

Thanks for your responses. 

While I understand @IMKeto 's argument about the importance of opening theory at my level, I disagree with the phrasing that is does nothing.  I would argue that I'm at the level where it does start to matter.  Early game mistake can easily put you on a 0.5 - 1 points disadvantage. While not decisive by any means, it does count if you are playing against Master level gameplay and you are the first to deviate from theory.

But it's not fairness I worry about. It's more that it changes my perspective on these games.  I appreciate @sholom90 's words, and I enjoyed reading them, because they describe my choice to not use opening explorer and games database as a much more brave choice than it was. The fact is, I never even considered it. I just found out today that it's allowed and I'm wondering whether it's common practice to use them or not. I prefer not using them, but that might change if everyone else is using them. I can accept that, but it does change my perspective on the value of these games. Two 1400 rated players playing GM level opening theory because it's literally available in an ingame tab, just one click away doesn't sound appealing to me.

The scenario as mentioned by @little_guinea_pig is exactly what I'm afraid of. In the worst case, when both players follow games played by Masters as long as they can, you end up replaying entire games by GMs. 

I suppose I’m going to sound like I’m placating, but I kind of agree with everything that has been said. If i were only interested in raising my rating i might be tempted to use all the above. But, i wouldn’t necessarily be learning much about how to play this game. I would like to say that i learn from my mistakes more than from what a computer tells me is right. But… looking at all my mistakes, i should be a GM by now! Truthfully, getting better is more important to me than rating points. They do serve as a measuring stick and I’m grateful for that. So, I’d say (from a lower rated player) stay the course. I think you’ll benefit more in the long run by not taking the “shortcut.” 

This has been hashed out many times on the forums.

It's not cheating in any way.  It's just a format you don't personally enjoy or see the point of.

"Daily" i.e. correspondence games are about using all resources available *short* of getting direct assistance from another player (or an engine) to learn, and to play the best games possible.  It improves your OTB play a lot if you do it right.

Votechess on a good team is also great for learning openings and positional play.

When I played Daily, I would use databases to explore options and play what I felt I understood until I felt I should deviate or the opponent deviated. With the exception of a few games, most were out of any database I had access to before move 12, often by move 6 or 7. Blindly following a database isn't a really good idea; just because a line was played doesn't make it good or that you will understand it.

It depends on how you want to play Daily. A lot of serious players treat it as research, and are attempting to find the best play they can. It's a form of correspondence chess, which has always allowed use of the same materials the site allows.

The thing is, daily chess is not the same as a live chess. It has its own history as a correspondence chess. People would wait for mail to come and see their opponent's move. As the game could last for a long time, people could use books and whatnot.

That is why people can use opening database (without engine evaluations) in daily chess here.
Of course, playing unsound gambits in daily chess could be counterproductive because of this, as those games are supposed to be the most accurate games possible, because you can spend hours and even days on a single move, and of course because it is much more difficult to be lost out of the opening. So tricks that succeed in blitz and even longer rapid games, can backfire in daily games.

There are a few options.The first option is to not play daily chess but longer live games instead. Second choice is to accept the situation with daily chess and play it as it is. The third option would be to find a club where people decide not to use opening databases in daily games.

I agree with everything you said. I have never used any form of outside assistance and I'm not interested in doing so. If you want a "clean" game feel free to send me a challenge.