A TALLY OF DATABASE-USERS & NON-USERS

User.

I've explained my position in great detail in this thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/using-books--databases-for-playing-turn-based?lc=1#last_comment

To sum up: I agree with the poster who said that comparing Correspondance Chess with Over-The-Board Chess is like comparing the 100-meter dash with a 26-mile marathon.  They're both essentially the same contest, but with different parameters.  If a college football player comes down with one foot in bounds, is he "cheating" cuz you need both feet down in the NFL?  In college they stop the clock to move the chains on a 1st down, but in the NFL they don't.  Is one of them "cheating?"  If Thomas Holmstrom's butt was in the crease, should the goal against Marty Turco be dis-allowed?

After reading the many responses on this subject , I must say I didn't have a clue what CC is.  I can see your points and I feel Gonnosuke expressed it well.

"Having access to more information doesn't diminish the competition or the competitors in any way.  Having access to more information doesn't turn you into Anand.  In fact, having access to more information doesn't do much of anything....unless you know how to properly synthesize the information and use it to your advantage!  It's a skill like any other skill and it is what defines successful correspondence chess players."

tally up this whole group for the non-user side

Non-User

"Circle of Trust OTB"

Mebeme wrote: tally up this whole group for the non-user side   Non-User  "Circle of Trust OTB"

Tally up this whole group for the user side: All players on chess.com EXCEPT "Circle of Trust OTB".

How do you know that artfizz?

"circle of trust OTB" haha

You realize that most real OTB players on this site (like myself) use online chess primarily as a training tool and therefore don't hesitate to use databases and books.

Non-User

Mebeme wrote: How do you know that artfizz?

I deduce it from the assumption that, if anyone is serious about playing 'pure' chess, then they will have joined COT.     :)

OTB not as everyone in the group plays otb, but that they play this chess like otb

non-user.  To settle this dispute instantly, chess.com should have (as a seeking option) whether to use databases or not in standard online games.  This would instantly satisfy both sides while not forming to seperate "camps" based on ones opinion.  People who prefer 5 days to 3 days dont go forming different groups, similarly if this option was available in seeks, there would be no divisions.  This should be a relatively easy thing to add to the seek system too.

And how would anyone police this "not using database" promise?

Look, if you don't use books and DBs then you're going to be at a disadvantage pure and simple. If it means that much to you then don't use them, but that won't stop everyone else.

I (and Circle of Trust) aren't saying using databases is cheating, but saying we don't use databases or outside help during games, so you know you aren't  playing a centaur, if you are playing a CoT member.

(I didn't mean offend anyone with centaur, but i feel if i said computer it was garunteed to offend)

If you're so worried about approximating OTB conditions then why not go join a real chess club and play real OTB games?

USER. I play OTB via USCF tournaments. I use this site to improve so I can win more USCF games. This site is a great tool to use many resources to practice various differents elements of chess. I do agree with Olimar that chess.com could easily add a feature to allow the option of user vs non user. That should eliminate all of the issues between the two camps. Everyone will know going into a game or tourney what their opponants intentions are. This way nobody will feel cheated and everyone wins!

draco_alpine wrote:

I use a singular book for my openings so i learn them for my OTB play

Half User

Me too

i look at databases in the middle of a game only to see that i'm not walking strait into a trap in an unfamiliar line, i don't check to see too much forward on variations and stuff, just see the results of white, balck wins and number of games played to recognise traps (high percentage in a lot of games means there is something fishy, then i look at why it is fishy to know what to do to lure the opponent in)

adamWheatley wrote:  ... Everyone will know going into a game or tourney what their opponants intentions are. This way nobody will feel cheated and everyone wins!

I think I can safely guarantee that lots of people will feel cheated and that there will still only be one winner - or a tie for first place.

obviously if my idea became true you would have the scumbags who would join a non database and use it anyway, but theres no way knowing right now whether your opponents is using a super chess computer.... so its not a very sensible argument against the idea.

ericwheatley, ever thought some people dont live within 40 miles of a chess club? less tournaments here too.

Olimar wrote: ...  To settle this dispute instantly, chess.com should have (as a seeking option) whether to use databases or not in standard online games.  This would instantly satisfy both sides ...

Suppose I am a non-DB-user on one game, but a DB-user on another game - and these two games happen to be at the same position?