So no, not convincing argument. Anyway, books during months long postal games is way different than 2 day internet turn based games with GE.
Lol, well it seems to be convincing enough for the entire collective of correspondence chess players. Maybe go form your own chess empire somewhere? And postal matches are no different than even 24 hr per move online chess.
Thank goodness marijuana is legal for recreational use in my state. I need a toke right about now.
I am right now hehe 
That is ridiculous to argue openings are not hard. Oh they are so easy, that's why there are thousands of chess books on them, and most chess players spend the most time studying them, perhaps wrongly. So easy, that you should be very willing to go without the expert guidance of GE.
I don't use GE. Sometimes I use my personal database for lines I'm not familiar with and/or learning. But no, openings are not hard. Learning pawn structures is infinitely more productive.
So why do I go against staff deepgreene, and perhaps definition of cheating when I call you cheats for using GE? You are not violating rules, and I even said in earlier post that it was not cheating. But I fundamentally believe that you are violating the principle of chess playing which is playing the game on your knowledge and ability alone. Therefore, in violating that fundamental principle, you are cheating. But formally, you are not. And you believe that CC exception applied to turn based chess as allowed by chess.com overrides fundamental principle, if you even agree it exists at all.
You're dodging again. You said that Online Chess was not correspondence chess. It was proved that it is. You are absolutely unable to admit wrongness, what the hell is the matter with you?
This is where I attack your character (one of the things you accused me of which was actually true). Your character is deplorable. You disgust me and many others here because of this. It has nothing to do with chess or what you think of it.
Coconut, I was going to address point without repeat. Yes for long in dialogue people were saying CC =TBC without support. I said they are different and chess.com doesn't call TBC "CC". In fact, I don't really care what stupidity the CC world has adopted. I think Number finally provided definitively proved that chess.com believes that TBC=CC and used it in on that page and I admitted it. But that only supports that chess.com has bought into this erroneous thinking that is corroding humans playing the game (I.e. they support GE for TBC), which was obvious from 15 different signs and is the whole point of this thread, to change it in one way or another for the better.
Now you're all becoming federal, sentences composed mostly of acronyms.
So why do I go against staff deepgreene, and perhaps definition of cheating when I call you cheats for using GE? You are not violating rules, and I even said in earlier post that it was not cheating. But I fundamentally believe that you are violating the principle of chess playing which is playing the game on your knowledge and ability alone. Therefore, in violating that fundamental principle, you are cheating. But formally, you are not. And you believe that CC exception applied to turn based chess as allowed by chess.com overrides fundamental principle, if you even agree it exists at all.
Again this nonsense just now you replace "tradition" by "principle". Another invention from Peter. Stop it. Games should be 1) enjoyable 2) played by rules. End of story.
Go play on a different site. Chess.com is not the only chess site. Or play live chess. Or quit your bitching. We have explained to you the reasoning for the rule. It exists and will never change. There are other formats for you to play that don't have this rule. That's why different formats exist. So people with different tastes can play different games. The fact that you have never even once acknowledged being wrong and yet still insist you are the only one who is correct shows that you are just INSANE.
After some thinking I come up with this: the only way to improve in GE use is to improve your chess in general. Learn form books, videos, chess mentor, practical play etc. Work hard, analyse, have your own opinion on every move. Only through better chess knowledge and skill a raw data like GE will start making sense for you. There is no magic formula to add numbers and % and to come up with a good meaningful move.
I'd like your opinion on this.
OK, on and on about this point. I don't care what your chess skills are. The GE will guide you through nearly the best moves for every valid opening for many moves. You may end up in a game comfortable that you understand or you don't. Are you saying using the GE is easy or hard? Here you seem to be saying hard. Martinj who unfortunately left this debate agreed with you. Coconut says easy. others say easy. If hard, then you need to lay out the methodology. Lay out some the analysis of the numbers provided. Lay out what further learning needs to be done to become an expert. You are trying to saying that learning the GE =learning chess and I don't buy that. It is a subset, an aspect of the game, an aspect that shouldn't exist.
GE is like chess - easy to start, hard to master. And I do insist that one cannot master GE without mastering chess. I know in my heart that I am right.
As for high holiday quote, I saw your mention of it. I didn't see many responses to it. I added it after initial God post. This is what I would really like to see: chess.com create a learning chess game variation with multiple features including GE. For there to be a good guide written. For chess.com to be a more aggressive organization in consultation with other international chess bodies. possibly become a non-profit, divide itself into a playing and analysis/learning side. Perhaps these changes would mess up a good thing. Perhaps they would take it to the next level in an era when computers are dominant, more people than ever are playing internet chess, and technology can ruin the game if we're not careful.
As for high holiday quote, I saw your mention of it. I didn't see many responses to it. I added it after initial God post. This is what I would really like to see: chess.com create a learning chess game variation with multiple features including GE. For there to be a good guide written. For chess.com to be a more aggressive organization in consultation with other international chess bodies. possibly become a non-profit, divide itself into a playing and analysis/learning side. Perhaps these changes would mess up a good thing. Perhaps they would take it to the next level in an era when computers are dominant, more people than ever are playing internet chess, and technology can ruin the game if we're not careful.
You are the only one interested. They are not going to do it for just one person.
No I want to change chess.com, the leading internet website, and they are listening to this conversation regardless of how they feel about it. But when my contract is over, or they kick me off site I'll move on. Try other options. Perhaps they'll let me know when they adopt one of my ideas.
As for high holiday quote, I saw your mention of it. I didn't see many responses to it.
The only places I mentioned it were post #531 and #628, both after your ridiculous accusation. Why did you make the accusation? Were you posting something intentionally outrageous and you assumed I took the bait? Again, you were wrong, but you just can't admit it, not even now. What the hell is your post here even supposed to mean?
Uri, you cannot judge just based on who is commenting. A 2300 player, possibly GM or IM (on mobile, can't check) agreed that DBs is not for her(sorry if wrong gender). Weak players and very strong players should be opposed to it. As I've said, it is the mid level players overwhelmed by the opening knowledge they can't know who want the help. Why are you having an emotional reaction to prospect of having it removed during play?
Coconut, so you believe in God? Do you think God changes events in the world? Do you think God blessed chess.com? Is there anything chess.com could do to remove blessing? That was purpose of my post but I'm interested in your answers to those questions.
Why are you having an emotional reaction to prospect of having it removed during play?
There's no chance of it being removed. People are explaining [why you're wrong (edit)], not having "an emotional reaction."
You've been wrong so many times, you won't admit a single one of them, and you play manipulative word-games to convince yourself that you're right.
I won't let it go. What kind of a pathetic creature is completely unable to admit he's wrong?
Coconut, so you believe in God? Do you think God changes events in the world? Do you think God blessed chess.com? Is there anything chess.com could do to remove blessing? That was purpose of my post but I'm interested in your answers to those questions.
God has nothing to do with it, and I won't be roped into a silly side argument that's irrelevant.
I'm not wrong
You have to be able to back this up, or it means nothing. It's been pointed out over and over how wrong you are, but you aren't able to admit wrongness on even the most minor of points.
A couple:
You said that "Online Chess" was NOT correspondence chess, and when someone pointed out the FAQ where Chess.com explicitly said it was, you acted like THEY were wrong.
You said I was stupid for believing your "High Holiday quote," and when I said I was one of the few people who didn't comment on it at all, you ignored that.
You've said many other nonsensical things thoughout the thread, but those are two explicit examples from the top of my head.
Were you wrong, Peter? Are you just going to conveniently ignore this post like all the others?