artfizz wrote:
MainStreet wrote: It's interesting to note that "some" Users seem to be "hot-headed" on this topic while non-users are rather cool about it. And isn't it a wonder that a simple tally request can cause some people to even adapt a stance of "looking for a fight", when they're not even forced to join in? :)) Cool it, fellow-posters, it's just a voluntary tally. (",) To me, it seemed the other way round! A number of non-users were arguing from a position of being unaware of the OTB/CC distinction, and that the bulk of chess on this site is CC-based. Some non-users were arguing that CC-facilities should be removed from everyone. No users were arguing that CC-facilities should be mandatory.
I agree with ArtFizz: Users are simply explaining why they use a database, while non-users threaten and attack them as cheats, liars, and in some cases relate DB users as being like drug users???!!!!! If you are going to attack people on a subject you clearly don't understand then you should expect those you attack to defend themselves.
It's a learning tool but non-users will never understand this. They have this me against them mentality and have no comprehension about learning. Yes, playing is a learning experience too, but today's world of opening knowledge is a must for chess players.
Chess.com is not a race to a trophy; i.e. finish line. Their intent was and is to have a place to play and learn. As a matter of fact it is part of their logo. People assume this means you play, then go home and learn. That's OTB, correspondance was always meant to be a learning tool. To study your openings, and improve your over-all planning process while you played. That's what it was before computers, and it is still the same with computers.
The ultimate objective is to learn, not win.
. 
Some of the opposition to using the permitted resources for correspondence chess seems to be based on simple ignorance of the difference between OTB and CC. Anyone who thinks that using the permitted resources is "cheating" is simply misinformed.
Some of the opposition seems to be just the mindset that anyone who does something different from the way I do it is doing something wrong, inferior, impure, etc. I take it that to some extent the "Circle of Trust" folks fall into this category. I don't object at all to people playing however they want to play -- so long as it's not violating any rules -- but I do object to the occassional comment that reveals a bit of arrogance -- the idea that somehow they are the only ones playing "real chess" or "pure chess" and the rest of us are playing something inferior.
Anyone who plays turn-based chess without the benefit of all the correspondence chess resources because he thinks he's playing "real" or "pure" chess seems to me to be badly mistaken. Correspondence chess, as has been pointed out many times, is a chess variation that has a long and distinguished pedigree. (Are you all aware the Paul Keres made extensive use of correspondence chess when he was young because he did not have access to strong opponents for live play?) There is even a correspondence chess world championship. Playing online with multiple days per move without using the resources of correspondence chess is a hybrid game that is neither OTB nor CC. You eliminate the time pressure and continuous flow of an OTB game, without replacing it with the "studiousness" of a CC game. It bothers me not one iota that people want to play this way. If they think it is better training or more fun, that's great for them. But to think that it is somehow superior to correspondence chess is simply mistaken.