can you read a chess book while playing a correspondence game

So this means that you believe that a book that gives a winning line in a particular position that was generated by an engine is against the rules to use in online chess?

Endgame tablebases are also not created in a split second. And I'm sure there are endgame books that have made use of tablebases to show the winning move in a given position.

Whether the engine calculation gives the best move or not is irrelevant to it being against the rules.

What do you mean "Try the rules"? I'm suggesting that artfizz's description of the rules isn't 100% clear, not that anyone is breaking the rules.

Indeed, because of tablebases, we know that RKvs K is mate in 16 from the hardest position; QK vs K is mate in 10, and BBK vs. K is mate in 19.

Because computers have worked such things out, we know that it is checkmate in 72 from:

 That is utter complete rubbish: QK vs K is mate in 7, RKvs K is mate in a lot more than sixteen, and that 72 thing is more like 10

My information comes from Muller and Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings, and the tablebases on my computer. Post your refutations, or acknowledge that your claim is rubbish.

White to move. Checkmate is forced in ten. If anyone can force checkmate in fewer moves, he or she will become famous.

This is not the quickest checkmate, but it is against strong opposition, and White played by the self-imposed rule: "no check unless it is checkmate."

Listen bro, I don't use books or Data Base or anything else, while I'm playing online, I'm here to have fun & test what's in me wee head, trial & error one might say, for when I'm playing OTB I'll be in the same situation as here, don't get me wrong, when I want to check something out, or refreshing my mind on other lines that are obscure to me & I feel that it could be worth investigating, then hell yo, I'll use what ever I, can get me me hands on, books, Data Base's & even Chess Engines, boring as it's time consuming, I'm game.

Go find a book, that gives a computerised, winning line, do it bro, but you'll find that you'll be buying 100ths of 1000'sns of books just to find the winning lines from your own situations, for are the always the same?

excellent question, if we can use books, i ask:  can we consult an ouija board??

Careful there, you're talking about cheating when you fire up the engine.

I'm refering to my private studies, for I've stated nantes amount of times, that I don't use any sort of outside help other than my wee brain while I play online or OTB, as stated in post #50 above, please Ziryab, to save complications, if you're gonna quote some one, don't be putting just halve of the quote in view, put all or nought!

Don't be ridiculous. Quotes should be selective and accurate, not endless. Look at post #30 in Chess Library for an example of the absurdities when quotes aren't snipped.

Many long posts jump around from one subject to another. There is no reason to quote the whole when you wish to address a part; it also leads to unnecessary complication and confusion when too much that is off the point is quoted. I snipped away the part that is outside the focus of this thread.

The focus of this thread concerns use of databases. You put them together with engines when you turn to them. Of course you can train with them, but you cannot use them in online chess, where databases not only are permitted, but actively encouraged. Indeed, for many players, that is part of the appeal of the chess they play here.

Ziryab wrote:...Careful there, you're talking about cheating when you fire up the engine.

Ok then, I ain't talking about cheating, stick that in your unholy quotes, I'm simply replying to posts #39 & #43 by Loomis!

Ziryab wrote:...The focus of this thread concerns use of databases,

If that's the soul of the case, then I won't be a wasting your time, but check out the link below & you won't be a wasting yours!

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-tally-of-database-users--non-users

I'm well aware of that thread (you'll see that I posted in it some time ago). The tone and language of that thread, like the language you employed that I highlighted by quotation, contributes to a common misunderstanding among those new to turn-based and other forms of correspondence chess. This thread in which we are now posting began with a simple question, answered a minute later with a simple reply. Your post seems to me to cloud what should be clear.

I did not accuse you, but cautioned you on the possibility that you could be misunderstood. You clarified your position. This discussion is good and useful. None of it is a waste of time, although most of that thread you reference is.

You prefer to play without benefit of databases. Fine. Here at Chess.com, there is even a group (or set of groups) calling themselves "Circle of Trust" who eschew the use of databases.

My OTB play is serious, and I have improvement goals. My use of databases here is designed to advance these goals. Playing online chess here and playing over the board in tournaments are complimentary and mutually reinforcing; these two manners of play, however, are not identical.

Another one is Tally Team Non-Users which yous can find by clicking on the link,

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/tally-team-non-users

Why not use the term "scholars" instead of "users" for those that do the extra work of exploring the depths of databases while playing thier games? The term "users" is misleading because of its negative connotations, as several posters pointed out in the thread you referenced.

A match between those that employ scholarship during the course of a game, and those that defer it certainly proves nothing, as noted in that group's notes. But such matches keep alive a distinction that has minimal positive value, and plenty of potential for aggravating that common misperception. I want no part of it.

Yeah, good one that" Tally Team of Non Scholars " does that sound better to ya sir?

I don't see what you mean "extra work of exploring the depths of databases ",everybody does it their own way, some online, some off line, some do both, big deal, c'est la vie, & where would you get a scholarship for " USING " a Data Base? Havard?

Univ Texas Dallas and U Maryland Baltimore County both offer chess scholarships.

Perhaps over there in the Emerald Isle you're not aware of the depths of anti-intellectualism in America. In my part of the country, non-scholars are more than merely proud of their lack of learnin'. Many consider it essential to good company.

On the other hand, I most certainly would not join a group that calls themselves non-scholars, just as I eschew groups called users and non-users.

Chess Scholarships maybe, but Data Base scholarships??? Maybe on the owl Emerald Isle everything is green, but not that green.

But if the group was called scholars you'ld probaly think about it, while users is more to the point of the group, you would'nt, you take your words to close to heart,Ziryab!

Yes, and be aware that doing so may increase the amount of time you spend with each game. Reading books and using databases during play adds labor intensive research to your play. It will take longer, but you will become a stronger player if you do it well. Online chess is a game for scholars.

But, be aware that a few will misunderstand or misrepresent your quest for chess truth. Some may even call you a user in their efforts to misunderstand and misrepresent your labors.