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

lol, after the first couple posts, I thought we were going to resolve this obvious bad blood between us!  I was ready to make up, and then you come out and tell me to atone for my sins!

You need help, buddy.

No, Coconut, you were extremely rude way before me.  But you were not alone.  You just were particularly pronounced.  

I'm sure I was particularly pronounced, but you don't seem to grasp what rudeness is.  It's not just stuff that annoys you.  It includes calling everyone else cheaters, telling them they're wrong, saying they're corrupting the game, and ignoring anything that's not convenient to you.

Perfect... http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-do-some-poeple-never-resiging-in-online-chess?page=7

Captain_Coconut  

Gets on the internet, and gets his asshole urge out for the day.

Probably not.  Were you highlghting Captain_Coconut's well structured argument?  I am losing track of what side of what argument you are on.

Seriously Peter?

From the top:

For the first several (two thirds of your quotes): A guy getting upset that low-rated opponents wouldn't resign (thinks he's being disrespected), so he tries to humiliate them.

I tell someone to grow up when they call me ignorant simply for disagreeing with them.

Reacting to the ignorance to a half dozen people trying to diagnose Bobby Fischer with autism, schizophrenia, and other things, while making up things about Freud as well.

A guy was trolling around, talking about suing GMs for not giving him lessons, pretending not to understand turning a rook upside down.  Someone was getting sucked in and I let them know he was a troll.  This was after I was the first to respond honestly to what seemed to be an honest question, despite the trolling I'd seen before.

I don't see all this "asshole urge" that you do, but it does almost look that way out of context.  I encourage anyone to click the links Peter's posted. I'd say I handled things better than most would.  Definitely not like an "asshole."

Peter, if I'm ever tried for a crime, I want you to be the prosecutor.

In all honesty:

Although I don't like you, Peter, I really don't want anything bad to happen to anyone.  Make sure that your boss doesn't see this whole conversation.  If you've got a government job like you say, the stuff you've been saying will get you fired in a heartbeat.

tubebender, I can turn my attention to you. But it is too much energy and diverting me from my point to defend against such persistent nastiness when this debate should have been argued on the points and impersonal. But someone like you, Ponz111, so tied into this CC system where you get a good portion of your moves out of a book, software package, or other tool doesn't want to admit it's wrong. tubebender, I have no reason to respect you, and won't respect you based on your age, chess rating, what chess activities you have done, or anything else about you: only on the strength of your arguments. Your arrogance in both posts suggests that you were patronizing and dismissive in your work and personal life, so I question your abilities as an inspiring teacher. But nonetheless, someone making a point against one of my points doesn't mean it has been refuted, especially if I make a counterpoint. Now obviously, we can't know what God wants and don't agree on anything about God, so the argument can't be argued on that basis, but I have just said my belief which, if listened to, should ring true, if you are a believer. I'm willing to argue a little more but I've said nearly all I can.

And I most definitely wouldn't respect you based on how much money you claim to have.

One reason that I didn't join the USCF again is that I thought I could get all the chess I wanted out of a chess website.  Little did I know that it had been corrupted by this unimporant side relic of correspondence chess so that the chess I enjoyed most on the chess website was not true competition, but competing against people playing with a tool whose true power I don't even fully realize.

I get into Vote Chess, and people are posting moves.  What is the point of discussing any other moves not listed?  I'm on the team, and I feel that my team is cheating, it disgusts me.

I'm competing in Team battles, and now I have to question, is my 1400 opponent who seems to be playing so well using the Game Explorer or engine against me?  Ok, the egine is against the rules, but how about the GE?

So I question it here, and you all say it is ok.  But I'm sorry, I don't buy your arguments.  They don't ring true to me.  It seems like I'm years too late: internet chess has already been damaged by this CC rule.  Maybe when Internet chess started, it could've been argued.  And yes, I don't understand why I don't have any support.  Nearly any argument on a thread receives some support, but this argument, which seems so reasonable to me, has received so little verbal support.  

But nonetheless, I think a lot of arguments on both sides were raised.  Maybe there was a point, maybe not.

I think there is space for compromise.  I think there can be a type of a chess with the GE.  And Internet games where genuine competition is the basis.

But mind you, while only iluv said that she prefers chess on her own that I recall.  Perhaps other people said it too.  

Multiple people said that they would support more information on the GE: uri, LongIslandMark, anybody else?  not sure.  i think btickler said my guide was "not bad" or something.  

So there was some agreement that some change of some kind was needed by at least some people.  Am I being dictatorial in my intentions? Maybe, but I'm trying to figure out what is the fair/best policy across the board.  Not just for me, which by the way, would be very difficult to implement since there aren't many explicit groups of people that are active who indicate they don't want reference materials.  Is this because there is no interest?  Maybe.  Maybe it's because they haven't considered the issue.

Actually you are wrong I played before chess engines were any good and played sans chess engine and sans data bases. I used no books except the ones I wrote.

But my point that your premises were and are completely untrue is what you are trying to not comment on. What you wrote in red-your first post is not true. 

  One cannot "compromise" with someone who spouts untruths. Especially someone who spouts untruths and will not correct his mistakes.

Yes I said that numbers in GE have to be explained and they have been explained (https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444857-how-do-i-use-the-game-explorer-) even before this thread started. All the rest is optional. You want to write you guide - fine, I see no use in it.

Peter all you arguments have been refuted. You failed to address any of refutations, mine in particular. So it all boils down to you believing that chess should be played in a certain way. Fine, you can believe it further but you fail to convince anybody.

Ask yourselves the following questions: Does chess.com want you to learn? (Yes). Is using the openings explorer allowed in correspondence chess? (Yes). Is it meant to provide you with a resource to help you learn? (Yes). Are you allowed to use it throughout the entire game? (No).

I personally have never tried it in my correspondence games, but with all the talk about it, perhaps I should try it out and see if it helps me better learn.

At the same time, I see one other view from the other side of this argument: If you sat down with someone at a coffee shop to play a game of chess, how would you feel if, after the first few moves, your opponent whips out a gigantic book to pinpoint what kind of opening you have in mind? I would be against that.

Finally, since I haven't tried using the opening explorer, can someone tell me the specific rules on the use of it, or provide a link? I cannot find a link on the subject at the moment.

Holy F.  Do you think?  Kind of like correspondence chess and OTB chess?  If only there were somewhere or some internet site that had both.  I bet 10,697,694 people would sign up for that.

No Peter, your logic engine is broken.  Support for information does not mean there is a need for change.  The gathering and use of information is voluntary.  If you write a guide and people read it, great.  Because they read it or even find it useful does not mean that they are then converted to your cause of changing  the rules for online chess.

Considering that virtually every player on chess.com has both a live and online rating and likely learned chess OTB I'm sure you are right. 

Finally. 

Now you can use that information to jump to all the wrong conclusions.