The Unacceptable Flaw with Chess.com: Use of Game Explorer/DB in Vote/Turn Chess

I believe it shows either the highest rating or the type of chess you are most active in.

HEre is an example I just found:

Well, some might say chess is meant to be played fact-to-face in a cheat-free environment. Yet, here we all are, playing online.

That is more how to have a debate.

Ok, to clarify.  You don't like people using databases and books in correspondence chesss so you want someone at chess.com to change the rules that the vast majority of players don't have a problem with and the build an algorithm to catch people who you think are cheating even though they are following well established international rules of coorespondence chess.

Instead of makeing this everyone elses problem why don't you either not play correspondence chess or play chess with friends or people you know that agree to not use reference materials?

Your problem is not everyone's problem.

Chess is not meant to have potentially 10,000 opponents at any given time.

There are groups where the players play Online Chess and agree not to use outside material such as the Game Explorer. 

YEah. I felt lucky the one time I had 2 other friends who liked to play chess.

yes.  I don't care and nor do the thousands of other people who seem to play here everyday.

Guilty!!

I use the explorer feature all of the time during my online games. This is how. I come up with what I want to play, then I check explorer. I'll check out the most common moves. I like to note what they are in the notes section. Sometimes I'll play through games from a particular position to see how they turned out. Do I ever change my intended move? Occasionally, if the explorer seems to indicate that my intended move is a mistake. Do I ever play moves not in there? Sure, all the time. The explorer only tells me what Master Players usually choose. It doesn't tell me why. It gives me no insight into the mind of the players. I have to play what I understand--or even misunderstand--regardless of the moves indicated in explorer. Eventually, we get to position not in the database. That is interesting to note as well.

Is this cheating? How can it be? My opponent is free to avail himself of the same resources. I assume my opponent is. They are as free to use these resources, or not to use them (sometimes I choose not to use them) as I am.

People misunderstand the true purpose of online games. They are opportunities to study and learn. If you want a faster game where it is illegal to use these resources, then you play a live game. It's no secret that these are what online games are for. A little research would tell you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPa5oVG-nII

I actually hope they do play well the entire opening.  It kind of sucks to get handed the game in the opening due to a silly blunder, especially if it will still take 20+ moves to fully capitalize on it.  If I'm going to be playing a game that will potentially take months to play, I want my opponent to give me the best possible game they can, and that means safely getting to a middlegame where we can really flex our chessic muscles.

Chess is a game played for pleasure. And it looks like vast majority of players enjoy the turn-based chess here the way it is. That's why your arguments are irrelevant. But you are always free to leave and create a new federation or website with new rules. May be you can even find some followers...

to the OP: I hope you're not the same guy who want to change the stalemate rule.

Is there competitive Scrabble where the players get to look at dictionaries while trying to come up with words?  

Body building where the athletes agree to allow steroids?

Baseball where they allow the players to use grease on their hands?

Since the more important purpose of turn-based chess is learning instead of competing like I mistakenly thought, what other changes should be done to maximize the learning experience?  Wouldn't some mutual analysis after the game really be beneficial, and it is so rarely done?  Why shouldn't we have computer scoring of the position while the game is going on?  That may enhance the learning aspect of the game.  I'm sure some other enhancements could be done.

In any case, I do have a good compromise.  We could have two pools of turn based players: 1) those who want to allow reference materials including Game Explorer; 2) those who do not (and I am likely not the only one, just the only one speaking up right now).

You're an absurd individual.

You're starting to sound like one of those losers who lost a game and they think it is because of some rule or allowance in chess and now want to change it.

Yes, this is correct. The OP is just whinning about it.

You can always play without Game Explorer. I do it sometimes when training for OTB. What's all the fuss about? Few rating points???

Here's another great compromise: The thousands of players who enjoy Turn Based chess continue to play it and enjoy it, and you go away.

I'll go with this option.  If people don't like or understand a format, they are free to avoid it or provide "better" formats...

I don't like bullet chess, and I don't even consider it chess at all, really...but you won't see me demanding it be removed from chess.com.

OP: These are the RULES of correspondence chess, understood and accepted by 90%+ of the people who play it. If you don't like it, play something else!