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.
Please stop. You're just giving Christians even more of a bad name...
I may be wrong on these small details like use if the Elo scale or what chess.com says and have admitted that. In fact, this thread began when I admitted that Vote chess.com rules allowed GE despite confusing language on vote chess FAQ addressed in post #1. But I am not wrong on major points, or haven't been convinced yet by any of your arguments.
But I fundamentally believe that you are violating the principle of chess playing which is playing the game on your knowledge and ability alone.
So then, all scholastic chess coaches need to be thrown in jail, am I right? All sharing of chess knowledge should be punishable by public flogging...and everyone should only learn to play chess like Capablanca, by watching other people play, without asking any questions.
btickler, argument is silly. You can acquire knowledge however before game. You can even acquire related knowledge during game. You just can't be provided list of moves with numbers saying what best move for first 20 moves of game.
Mainline, you obviously haven't been reading closely.
It doesn't take a detailed examination to know that not only are you refusing to admit that fact that you've been refuted on multiple levels, but you are also trying to bring God into a chess debate.
btickler, argument is silly. You can acquire knowledge however before game. You can even acquire related knowledge during game. You just can't be provided list of moves with numbers saying what best move for first 20 moves of game.
At times you reveal what the crux of this problem actually is. You don't understand chess position evaluations. You don't understand openings. You don't understand that result % of games in a database is not absolute and is not an objective grade of the quality of move. If you understood any of these 3 things, you would realize how ridiculously far off you are on how influential the games explorer is.
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?
Please read your own post #1 if you want know what "emotional reaction" is.
I played correspondence chess on various sites since 2006 and they all proposed some kind of database. It's convenient tool for learning while playing and I don't see any reason to remove it. People are free not to use it if they prefer so. I use it only for 1/3 of opening moves at most. I agree that numbers should be explained but what you do with GE is up to you. Step-by-step instruction for using GE is nonsense, like step-by-step instruction for reading a chess book. I have several approaches to using GE and none of them is described in your guide. So what? I have the right to develope my own playing and training methods.
I'm not a polytheist christian (or that religious at all), have not been refuted, and point was chess.com and those involved will lose the blessing they have received if they continue to corrupt God's game and allow for only small group to have adequate knowledge of its use. If uri, or what martinj said in post #55 is at all true, that it takes skill to use GE, then publish a strategic guide similar to what I wrote in post #390. That is only fair. If you don't care about being fair, you don't care about being moral, and you don't deserve blessings. Let it go elsewhere.
You've been refuted by dozens of people dozens of times, but you are insane. No one wants your little guide. And now you're dishing out and taking away blessings?
Fixing, as I've said to Number, Coconut, and others, if what you can add is primarily insults, then shut up. Go back to smoking weed and doing your homework. You are pretty sucked up in this thread. It may be healthier for you, and me too, to spend less time on it. You had a point worth responding to in one of your earlier posts, but I got distracted and have lost my patience with your insults. Anyway, I'm leaving current location.
There is nothing left to add to this topic. Why do you think this thread was moved to "Off-topic"? You're just a test subject at this point; someone to poke and prod and observe the reactions. You have issues that aren't related to chess...they just manifest in odd ways and it is interesting to me. I am crazy in my own ways as well, so I can generally point out insanity when I see it.
Peter, I don't have any secret strategic guide to share - just few methods in using GE.
Method #1
Just copy the top move. Used it in the past. Still use it occasionally when bored/don't know what to play/in lazy mood. It always feels very dumb. And by the way you can blunder - once I made mistake copying the move - played Be3 instead of Bd3 - just moved the wrong bishop.
Method #2
Play 5-10 moves on your own. Then compare to GE, see where deviation happened, analyse, try to understand. Play next 5-10 moves etc.
Method #3
Get a book or two on your favorite opening. When choosing a move read books, compare to GE, try to understand the ideas (from books). Decide what you prefer.
Method #4.
Decide a move on your own but don't make it. Open GE. If your move data looks Ok - play it. If not - try to undersand why. Then decide what to play.
As you can see it's not rocket science. The key is in understaning of what is going on and where it is heading. Hence I'll repeat it again - you can only improve your use of GE via general improvement in your chess knowledge and skill.
You are right though Peter, this thread is a huge waste of time, someone as dense as you is hopeless. Maybe I'll come back when this topic hits 1000 posts.
Untracked 
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.
A learning variation? Like a chess mentor or turned based chess where reference materials are available to players? Maybe a predict a move game too. Maybe another where players could get together in teams and vote on the best moves. Gosh, all great ideas.
Peter, congratulations on your aquisition of chess.com. Good luck with FIDE and getting your other ideas off the ground.
What do you mean "if we're not careful"? Are you inviting us to help run your new chess empire? If so, can I be "Secretary of Blitz"? Disconnectors are going to get the Chicago power grid blasted through their connection. And no worries. I'm good with non-profit. There is a Lambo dealer in my town.
I'm not a polytheist christian (or that religious at all), have not been refuted, and point was chess.com and those involved will lose the blessing they have received if they continue to corrupt God's game and allow for only small group to have adequate knowledge of its use. If uri, or what martinj said in post #55 is at all true, that it takes skill to use GE, then publish a strategic guide similar to what I wrote in post #390. That is only fair. If you don't care about being fair, you don't care about being moral, and you don't deserve blessings. Let it go elsewhere.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of chess,
I will fear no elo; For you are with me; Your pieces and Your pawns,
they comfort me.
I may be wrong on these small details...
This is what someone with your problems does. Saying "I may be wrong" or other vague language is just another way to not have to admit you're wrong. You were clearly proved wrong on several things, and not just small details.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I'm not a polytheist christian," and it seems that you don't know what you mean either.
Fixing, as I've said to Number, Coconut, and others, if what you can add is primarily insults, then shut up.
Coconut, you deserve every insult thrown your way. You are an asshole who deserves it...
The hypocrisy and irony here is a joy to behold.
*still refuses to admit being wrong on anything*
Not surprised one bit that you're a wacko theist trying to plug God into everything.