if you're so against the use of databases in online chess just play weird openings to get out of the book early.
but then you're forced to make a concession, simply because you want to emulate proper play.
Why do you keep suggesting that using databases and computer assistance are more or less the same, they are not. I've already said like three times that you can refer to databases, this is one of the appeals of correspondence chess imo since you can research an opening as you play and therefore you do not have to limit yourself to openings you know, but you cannot use computer assistance. This is not a difficult distinction to make.
And where do you find databases except on a computer? An old copy of MCO perhaps. Yes, I understand that the rules allow the use of "databases". This is not a discussion of what's right or wrong for so-called correspondence chess as defined by chess.com. I made my point about opponents using positional databases to look up ongoing game positions in computer databases during active game play and I don't think it's at all helpful to me in learning, to find a position in a database, see the calculated (dis)advantage and subsequent variations, and then be able to use that knowledge to make the next moves. I don't like it, so I'm abandoning that type of play here. I'll find something else that better reflects my ability and progress against peers. I'm not criticizing anyone for their choice of play and I'm not saying the rules are wrong. They are what they are. I just don't care for those rules here for online chess.
Databases can hurt you as much as help you. You can follow a database game that seems favorable right into a lost game.
Using a chess engine or getting advice etc. is unethical and gives you an unfair advantage at least and an unsurmountable advantage often. I can pretty much tell when my opponent is using a computer to give him his moves. They are just too perfect, for one thing. Human players don't play that way although a top level grandmaster comes close. Chess.com says the cheaters are a very small percentage, but I think there are at least a dozen cheaters for every one that they catch, especially in speed chess.
All copies of MCO and other opening books are data bases. Other data bases include chess magazines (Chess life had an annual index of openings used in the years published games), tournament bulletins, and game collections (complete with opening indexes). Data bases started hundreds of years ago when man started recording games. The complaint when I started playing correspondence games over 50 years ago was that the winner was the player with the biggest library. A common tactic was to chose a chess hero, collect his games and follow his repertoire (players like Fischer with narrow repertoires were ideal for this). If any thing the Internet with its free data bases has been the great equalizer.
Don't know I forgot about the Informants.
One of the prevalent criticisms of "older" chess books is that they have NOT been vetted by modern computer analysis. Many newer authors find joy in pointing out "faulty" analysis by their predecessors. I doubt that many, if any, chess books written in the past 20 years have not had their analysis run through chess engines. In addition, chess engines use massive opening books and endgame tables themselves to reduce CPU time on those aspects of the game. I'm simply not interested in matching wits with a chess engine, which is why I seek unassisted games against humans. OTB seems to be the only way to achieve that any more.
The person that started this thread obviously feels like you do. Why not challenge him to a game. Maybe you two could form a group and hold your own tournaments. If you stick to playing people with ratings close to yours, you should be able to find opponents with which you can be competitive with following your preferences.
What attracted me to correspondence chess was that I there was no need to memorize and I can play openings that interested me, but the memorization needed to play them OTB would be a full time project. I found that correspondence play helped my OTB game immensely. Alekhine and Paul Keres honed heir OTB with correspondence play. Alekhine stated that Correspondence and OTB play complement each other. In OTB play practical considerations dominate, while correspondence chess is the search for perfection. Many find correspondence play intellectually fulfilling. Good luck with what ever you decide to do.
I've been following this discussion for some time now. I'm not sure I see why the use of a database of moves should be an issue. I am sure that a huge number of players on chess.com don't use any augmentation, and it is a shame that some in this discussion trail feel they'll leave chess.com in the belief that they can't play the sort of chess they want to play.
I know I don't use assistance, but there again my ranking isn't that great either. I would also be prepared to bet that the vast majority of players I play against don't use any kind of augmentation either. I know this because we all make mistakes. I must say I enjoy playing stronger people than myself (assuming they have the patience) as it is always a learning experience. Frankly, I don't care one whit whether I am playing a person or a computer - it all needs to go down to the experience of getting better through repeated failure - its how we learn everything worthwhile.
I think perhaps @swmike has the right idea since there are no viable alternatives to those of us who do not live in large metropolitan areas full of chess clubs and OTB opponents frequently available. And I've also said elsewhere that so far, in about a dozen games, I have not found anyone who obviously cheats with an engine, although I can't say that about opening databases since I'm very weak on openings and wouldn't recognize many variations of many standard lines anyway.
I learn more from losses than from wins by plugging the finished game into an engine and considering suggested alternative moves. I'm just very disappointed that chess online play has come to rely on outside help not available OTB. Some of us play "naked" while others ride the databases to a stronger position, and there is no way to know which is which...like comparing apples and oranges.
I accept that you don't want to use a data base during play. I would suggest that you use a data base for your post mortem analysis. The moves that a Master makes in the opening are organically linked to the middle game structures he is playing for. Fritz understands none of this which is why it depends on an opening book to get through the opening. Left on their own computers play the opening phase of chess poorly. A computer engine is most vulnerable right when it comes out of its opening book. The computer does not understand the reason pieces were placed on certain squares and will go about rearranging the pieces consistent with its own crude notions of positional play. This rearranging results in a loss of time. Fritz 13 has a nice data base which contains many annotated games. I would suggest you use it or you are never going to learn the thematic ideas of your chosen opening.
I most certainly do use MCO and online databases to analyze a game for post mortem analysis. I have MCO 10 and MCO 15 along with the Horowitz Chess Openings: Theory and Practice which, while old and descriptive notation, is another decent source along with online help.
What I object to, in case I did not make my argument clear, is using these resources during a game at certain positional points in the opening. When you look up an opening at a certain move, you are given the moves going forward along with evaluations of the position and suggestions for subsequent moves and variations. That is what I object to - which is in effect using outside aid to defeat an opponent under the guise of "learning" for which an argument can be made. Since the rules of online playing (or CC chess) do not prohibit such outside aid, I find it unfair and more a test of who has the biggest database resources than who is the better player at that point in the game.
Having started briefly in chess many decades ago, I am like a kid in a candy store with the UCI, database and chess engine help available today. I simply do not think comparing resources in an active competitive game is quite ethical, despite the rules. As I've said, it's my hangup and I'll live with it since I have little choice. I much prefer OTB play for reasons of equality that I've given.
I noticed that sometimes, my opponent green connection line blinks...I wonder if this is related to him using a prog, as usually, the move after it blinks is very bad....did anybody else notice this?
I'm looking at this topic and it seems a fairly complete waste of time. First, a) a good chess player should recognise openings, but NEVER rely on them. Anyone who relies on an opening to get ahead is going to find him or herself in trouble when that opening doesn't get the expected results. Second - anyone who uses an engine and so on is an idiot. I mean, just ask yourself why you're doing this (against a real person). There are plenty of computer programs out there you can use an engine on for practice; however, I don't believe you're testing your skill, so to speak, to use them on another player. You're just going after points, which considering we're playing on a site where your points don't link up to any points you may have as an amateur (and so on if you're a tournament player), it just makes you sad. Just sad. Anyway, I doubt this will make a dent on anyone who actually goes through the trouble of using an engine - these people are usually douchebags who can't force themselves to understand that chess is about winning AND losing, learning along the way, and being a good sport about it. Cheers. I typed all of this in a Morgan Freeman accent.
please look at my games....opponet says i use engine...but i have never done tht,,,,u will find many unusal move in my game history,,please someone anlyze my game,,,n tell me m a good player or bad,,,