It is an incorrect term allowed.

It is meant to convey validation.

How can any practice be “”allowed or disallowed” when it is undetectable? 

Well, chess.com puts a LOT of weight on what people say. All the time chess.com takes people at their word, believes them 100%. No questions asked. We see it quite often when they take action, based on NOTHING other than what they say. 

So, if someone says they are using a real board only for duplicating exact game moves, why wouldn't they believe them? They are very diligent about believing other things people say. 

That's how.

Clearly you seek validation- for some unknown reason. Note- members of Staff are seen here and elsewhere repeating the same - If you are going to use a 2nd board - do not use it for analysis. 

Never is it said - it’s allowed if, it’s ok if, it’s permitted if  - with additional caveats . It simply can not be stated as such. It is undetectable. It is your interpretation alone. Feel free to feel good about the practice. For you it works perfectly well. Not a hint of any impropriety. However - you are not going to find anywhere written - its allowed if....

Absolutely. There is no rule against using a physical board. Period  - is correct.

This does not make the opposite automatically true becoming a rule itself - that it is allowed .

This whole business you guys/ gals fail to comprehend . The practice is undetectable. Think about that and it’s meaning. No rule can possibly be made about anything if it is undetectable - rules and enforcement can only be made when detection is possible - otherwise they become meaningless and unenforceable.

Not true. Admitting to abuse is only enforceable with corroborating evidence. You can tell CC you spam the threads. But if no such evidence is found anywhere you are not found guilty and sanctioned . Along with any admission- evidence must be seen. This is common sense and applies to any possible wrong doing here or anywhere.

Also - the issue is not a big deal for most cases. CC knows full well the practice generally is a Disadvantage. Why should they be overly concerned?

I'm not sure why this keeps coming up, but by now after the umpteenth time, everyone agrees using a second board for analysis is not allowed. That was never in question. The original post here was asking how many people use a second board. It was you who brought up that it was against fair play rules. It is not against fair play rules. You just believe it is. 

Using a second board is NOT undetectable when people actually say they do it. I dont need to interpret the rule, because there isn't a rule against it that needs interpreting. Fair play rules say nothing about using a real board with real pieces to relay only exact game rules. There are THOUSANDS of things fair play rules do not list. It says nothing about using a real clock either. Maybe someone wants to practice for a tournament, and wants to use a real clock. It would probably be cumbersome, but nothing prohibits it. I gave the example of wine. Is it outside assistance? I dont know, it helps me play better because I play better when relaxed. But fair play rules say nothing about wine. 

I do agree with you about validation though. Because I both drink wine AND use a real board, I want to make sure neither are against the rules. (I dont use a real clock though). I use our custom brown and tan board, which sits on top of an actual chess table, with two chairs shaped like knights. The pieces are also brown and tan. It sits in the den with three windows overlooking our front lawn and the forest behind that. When playing a game, and not looking at the pieces I look out the window. Is that assistance because it also helps me? Probably. But in the rules it doesn't say I cant do it, so I think it's allowed. 

A rule can only be a rule if it’s enforceable. Meaning that its possible to gather evidence, or make observation of wrong doing. Otherwise any rule becomes meaningless- pointless to make attempts to put in writing for something that can not be detected in the 1st place. It is faulty logic to make assumption that because a specific rule is not in writing prohibiting behavior that the behavior then automatically becomes endorsed as be perfectly fine in nature.

I have only said there exists possible issues with Fair Play rules. Best to become familiar. It is against Fair Play if used wrongly . Quite the difference than a blanket statement.

"The practice violates fair play policy for Live play..."

Sounds like a blanket statement to me.

Wine is definitely an advantage. Makes people smarter. Beer drinkers are at a disadvantage - more consumption time, total distraction. The hard stuff is is clearly cheating - but go ahead. Works for a game or two but not much longer.

Why not?

If it were not allowed, or somehow bad, it would be stated. It is perfectly fine in nature because it enhances the chess experience. It's exactly the way chess was intended to be. 

I do that

Yes. I should have made better description of violating Fair Play rules . What I said can easily be construed as a strict interpretation- one that I have been careful to amend. It is “technically” against the rules and stated as such by others . However I have learned this usage is not the best and conflates the issue. I think that was a 1st post or so and have since amended my words.

I dont understand how it's faulty logic to assume that it's ok if it's not in writing prohibiting it. Isn't that exactly what a rule is? Something that an authority says or writes that has consequences for violating? If it's not in writing (or at least said) then how can it be a rule?

There is no written rule that I cannot select a certain song on my play list while driving. Is it distracted driving? Maybe. But it's not prohibited. So, it's allowed. How could I be told not to do it when there is nothing that prohibits it?

Chess.com Community Policies

Effective date: June 5, 2020

Chess.com has become the largest online chess community with millions of active members representing every country on the planet. Our goal is to create a fun, safe, and fair place for all chess fans to enjoy the game.

We encourage all members to treat others how they would like to be treated and to follow the specific guidelines below. Players and community members who are unable to follow these rules will be subject to warnings, restricted privileges, separated playing pools, or even having their accounts closed.

Community Conduct Policy

• Be kind, helpful, and forgiving
• We will not tolerate racism, sexism, bigotry, or violent threats
• Do not abuse, attack, threaten, discriminate, or mistreat other members in any way
• Do not hijack threads, troll, or post distracting or meaningless content
• Do not post spam, advertisements, or copy/paste comments and messages
• Do not excessively promote your club
• Do not publicly debate religious or political topics
• Do not post obscene or pornographic content
• Do not discuss illegal activities
• Do not open more than one account

Sportsmanship Policy

• Do not abort games frequently
• Do not make your opponents wait unnecessarily
• Do not disconnect or quit without resigning when lost
• Do not harass or accuse your opponents

Fair Play Policy

• Do not get help from any other person, player, or coach
• Do not allow anyone else to use your account or access anyone else's account
• Do not use chess engines, bots, plugins or any tools that analyze positions during play
• You may use Opening Explorer or other opening books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only
• Do not artificially manipulate ratings, matches, or game outcomes
• Do not interfere with the game-play of other members
• You may not use tablebases, or any other resources which reveal the best move
• Do not "blunder check" or do any analysis of your games in progress
• If you suspect your opponent is using outside help, this is not an excuse for you to do the same. Please report the player

If you have any questions about our policies, please reach out to our Support Team.

A number of sports have rules where infringement cannot be observed. Offshore sailing for example and to a certain extent dinghy racing. Possibly golf too. I'm sure there are others. They all rely on fair play.

Any rule that is made in any sport posses the means and ability to detect an infraction. If not - then “guidelines”are made.

By definition- a rule can not be regarded as such if the behavior is undetectable. Enforcement is impossible- rendering any such attempts pointless.

Please cite an example. Confident it can be refuted by demonstrating the rule can be enforced because some manner of detection is possible.

We see it quite often- guidelines are made regarding proper procedure and behavior. But a specific Rule is not written as any penalty would be unenforceable.

Quite basic really. A rule can not be a rule if no means are available for verification that it is being broken. Otherwise “guidelines” are written governing proper behavior. These are not rules but explanations for ethical behavior or lack thereof.

In California stop signs are just suggestions. 

A lone golfer kicks his ball out from a tree. Nobody is watching - he is bound by the rules to take a penalty. But he does not do so - thinking nobody is the wiser. Wrong assumption to think he can not be penalized.  Means may be available to detect the infraction. Hence it is a rule. Most everything in the public domain can be verified in some manner. What lies in the private domain- your home setting is not. Hence no attempts are made at legislation as there is no way    to detect/ verify behavior unless directly observed. Of course engine use is legislated  - detectable making enforcement possible.