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

Peter, have you read any of the responses or even what you wrote?  Have you suffered brain trauma that prevents affects your memory?  You even wtote yourself that Game Explorer is 2 million games and Megabase is five million.  Effectively you have answered your own question.  If you actually think about what a database is why it does not represent best play should be logically obvious.  It represents all play.  The good and the bad. The active and passive.  All the blunders and all the brilliancies.

I suggest that you read every thing people write to you.  It appears that you read only every third word and end up missing the point. 

I'm not resorting to anything.  The words are coming out of your own mouth (keyboard)...maybe you should come back in 10-20 years and read them again.  

Peter, I'll be patient with you and give you another chance YET AGAIN.

Go back to post #507 (Page 26) and address it please.  You seem to ignore half of what's said.

Thread killed.  Peter is right.  Everyone else is wrong. 

Addressing another point, yes, Chess.com is more powerful than Kasparov or even a group of GMs.  I don't know how many active users.  Let's say 1 million users who log in at least once a month.  No other chess organization comes close to that.  It speaks for the most chess players in the world.  It gets to speak to what will be the chess rules in effect.  FIDE, step aside.

I don't know how FIDE has addressed internet chess.  Maybe somebody can speak to that.  If it hasn't, then that is negligence.  And it needs to in one way or another.

But Internet chess is the current and future state of how chess is played.  I DO NOT CARE IN THE SLIGHTEST WHAT RULES HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT.  The only question is what rules make sense.

...then go back to post 484, or any number of other posts where PeterB skips over anything he can't handle.

That's 1 million followers who like how things are done at chess.com (correspondence chess inlcuded). How many followers do you have? ZERO

I do not know if I have 0 followers.  It may be true, it may not be.  I have to go do another activity.

That doesn't matter.  Your opinion is worth absolutely zero to anybody but you.

Somebody, go find the damn correspondence rule history... which organization created it, when, and what did it say.  Bill Wall's history, and other pages I've seen don't mention it.  I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just asking, what is the history on it?

No, you find it, you self-entitled nutjob.

Peter, you are creepy.  You've creeped my profile and are searching forums for other's posts.  You are a wierd one. 

Anyway, I'm untracking this tread because you fail to consider anything written by anyone but yourself and you have been unable to provide a single example where use of a database has brought a meaningful advantage in either your games or anyone elses.  I'd even be happy if you explained a mechanism where you could evaluate this and I'll find the games myself.

In fact, you even fail to grasp the simple premise that if your opponent is using a database and you are not and the move sequence is being played out to the 20th move in a database that your moves are also in the database.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong then why start a thread? You are
obtuse or a troll. 

I'm done wasting time on this.

You seem to be the only one who thinks there is a problem with the rules. Once you mature into adulthood you will come to realize that if you are the one making the claim it is your responsibility to do the work to prove it.

Actually history doesn't matter so much. There is 1 million users happy to play a game this way. You are free to go somewhere else.

By the way, it is logistically and time difficult to respond to every comment people make.  As you see, at times, I get back to comments a bit late.  I do read the messages quickly.  Perhaps I need to read them more closely.  What many of you have failed to do in your defense of this rule, is to really defend it as a sound rule.  The only defense I've heard is that it raises the level of chess.  Perhaps enhances learning (though there is a counter-argument to that).  So, 1st, we need to get the history of the rule.  2nd, we need to argue the rule on whether it sound or not.  Given that the rule will likely be ruled sound, I really do not see a defense for why there should not be a guide to the GE.  It is not simple, and even if it was, there's no reason there shouldn't be a guide for it.  Therefore, I welcome your help in making a good guide.  

These things have all been addressed, but you've chosen to ignore anything that didn't jive with your agenda.

Games are played for enjoyment. As long as players (1 million) enjoy the game rules no other justification is needed.

You started by demanding that others write the guide which is very odd.

Otherwise many of us think that such guide is useless - please read my post #538 (page 27).

What is the definition of a sound rule?  Is it fair?  Does it make sense?  Is a database any more or less sound than the h1/a8 being the white diagonal?

No one here but you needs a guide to the game explorer outside what is available onsite.  Most here don't need a pamphlet on the rules of chess either but no one is going to dispute or care if one is published or not.  The second book ever published on a printing press was a chess book and the pace hasn't slowed since.  Add a GE manual to the tomb of chess literature, both good and bad.     

Your utopian view on things is heartwarming.  There are controlling interests at play in FIDE that you and I wouldn't be able to understand or do anything about.  

Peter, I'd like to know if you believe that you even have the ability to admit when you're wrong.

This thread has gone all over the place, and you've been proven wrong on several different things, but you haven't once admitted that you're wrong on anything.  You've either completely ignored it or simply claimed to KNOW you're right.