Why is the openings database available in daily chess?

@xAptive

I share your point of view and feelings.

Just try to make an out-of-book move early in the opening and take the game out of the chart

I love daily games. And I love to have the possibilty to use some books or youtube and the databases. It´s not only a way to play best it´s also a way to learn more. For example bevore I use the database I think about the question "what would I do next?" Then you see wheather the books or the databases agree with you. Or you find a move that is totaly ununderstandable for you as a recomended next move, so you start thinking: Why the hell is this a good move in this situation? And maybe you see some lines you wouldn´t have seen without this help. And for me it is no problem to reach the moment, where the game goes out of the "help" phase and I have to start without any help. I enjoy all parts of the game.

Bety good!

^^ THIS ^^

What a great description.  Perfect.  Indeed, you *really* only get to understand an opening if you get to play it.  Yes, you can use books, videos, etc., but it's all abstract until you actually play it.  Using the above method, we can do both: encounter an opening, and then have 24 hours to study it (the way you suggested) and then make the move.

Well put @archaja! 

Exactly. I 100% agree.

In terms of ethics, the distinguishing point is whether or not you consider a database of master games to be a chess engine or not. People tend to think it's not. Now, the ubiquity of computers these days leads to such applications of nuance to justify such a ludicrous position, but consider also that it has always been considered cheating in correspondence games to consult with a friend with a game in progress. So, it's cheating to get your mate Bob's opinion on a position, but not cheating to get Boris Spassky's opinion, without even buying him a beer?!? Really? 

 Completely disagree. That is what UNRATED games against friends are for. Doing that in a rated game against an opponent who is unaware that you're doing it is pathetic behaviour.

I have no idea why this is being debated.

Get a clue!  This is what Correspondence Chess is!  You can always use books.  You can always use databases.  No matter where you play.  The only difference is engines and tablebases.

Chess.com - Cannot use tablebases or engines

USCF - Cannot use engines

ICCF - Can use both

Live is supposed to mimic OTB play. How many of your chess friends are going to let you pull out your opening databases to look up moves or set up an additional board to try out variations before making a move?

I'm officially rated OTB play, you can't use any of that, and can't even make notes. It's just you and your opponent and your respective brains.

Sorry for the necro, but if anyone dislikes database usage in daily games, daily chess 960 (Fischer Random) is a nice alternative. Databases still exist, but are obviously far less extensive given established openings aren't really a thing.

I think if people are going to use databases etc both players should agree before the game exactly how many moves they are going to do it for.

And therefore daily chess is not in any way, shape, or form Correspondence Chess. To call daily chess Correspondence Chess is a complete joke. You want Correspondence Chess, go to iccf.com (The International Correspondence Chess Federation). Computers are allowed, but I dare you to try to use it for every move. You will likely lose. You won't get away with cheap shots as computers will point out they are a complete blunder, but what the computer says is the best move is not always best.

Daily chess is a joke.

There are organizations, such as US Chess, that also don't allow engines in their correspondence games. There are certainly differences in how the time controls work, but it's still correspondence.

By playing it's allowed to use a database for as long as you have matching games to follow, no agreement needed. Though, blindly following a database isn't always going to be a good idea.

And I refuse to play Correspondence any more by US Chess because of that rule. Nobody follows it. I faced an unrated player with an over the board rating of 1100ish. It was email, not snail Mail. This was a good decade ago or possibly more. I was White against him playing in the Electronic Knight Preliminary round. I played 1.b4. He tooted his horn about how he beat an 1800 and a 2000 and drew a 2100 over the weekend at a rated tournament, not knowing I could simply look him up on uschess.org and look at his tournament to see he actually scored two losses and two draws, or something like that, facing nobody over 1300.

So here he is playing a bunch of brilliant moves, leaving multiple pieces hanging due to very deep tactics that I reported to the director. The director gave a warning to all players, and after 19 moves (the point I complained), he starts playing like trash and I drew a position that I found out after the game was like, -5 to -6 after 19 moves, drawing around move 45 to 50.

Nobody follows honor systems any more. This was a blatant case. But if he used the computer sparingly, like maybe once every 5 moves or so, even detectors of cheating wouldn't catch it, especially back 10 to 15 years ago.

So sites with "honor code" systems are useless for correspondence. He should have forfeited and wasn't, and had I not caught on and said something, I'd have lost instead of barely drawing.

That's also why in forums you see me preach that internet ratings are meaningless. The same goes for correspondence ratings at sites that ban computers because many don't follow the guidelines, and the good ones will know how to do it without it being detected. Clearly they don't do it every move and always take the top response. They will also purposely not play the best move to disguise it. Instead of taking the +0.7 move, they gowiththe +0.4. Then later, instead of the +1.87 move, they go with the +1.18 move. Then later instead of the +4.09 move, they go with the +2.18 move. They figure they are disguising it and their opponent is honoring the system, so they will win anyway playing not best moves, yet being assisted by artificial intelligence.

ICCF is the only place I play correspondence now.

Ok thanks I am taking part in the Daily Chess Championship here so it is interesting to learn more about this kind of chess.