1) Computer game databases aren't allowed, only humans games are allowed.
My take:
2) Not a problem. All contemporary openings books are at least checked with engines.
3) Not a problem. My Predecessors is full of fritz lines and evaluations. I analize most of my games extensively with engines too, and I think I only had one single chance to play a "novelty" from my prior analysis.
I've never played one of those games,but it would seem to me that unless you are playing someone you know (good), how meaningful are any results. Is there a section down at the bottom of the page listing any sourses of help you received. Do you add another person's name to the list of players in the game.
Opening and early middlegame just works like this in correspondance type chess games. Like philidor said you're not supposed to use games from engine vs engine databases.
In opening books though the lines don't always contain moves as 1st choice from a computer because the follow up is impractical for a human player. The author will recommend moves that are practical but not bad as verified by computer.
So post game analysis aided by computer is about the same. If you go into a very sharp computer line it's unlikely your opponent will respond "correctly" and you'll be on your own soon enough. Often though this comes up in the middle game... so unless you're facing a strong player and really doing your research for a game, I can't imagine using reference materials that deep into a game. I say strong player because otherwise you'll be out of book quickly in any case.
My two cents.
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?
Wait....... it's cheating if you do that?
It, to be perfectly honest, all seems rather silly/sad to use 'engines' whilst playing .. kinda like Playing Jeopardy, with a computer sitting signed into Wikipedia.org, whilst playing someone only using their own 'skills'
In the event both persons used said website, doesn't it boil down to then, the website(s) playing each other
Whilst IN a match, Ish uses Ish uses Ish uses Ish .. no external sources are allowed
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?
Wait....... it's cheating if you do that?
I meant using opening databases
I don't understand why someone would do it...wouldn't it take all of the fun out of it?
This is how correspondence chess has always worked... players are allowed to do research.
If you want a game of just you vs your opponent that's what club/tournament/ and online live chess is for.
Most beginners don't realize this though, so unless you're rated ____ at chess.com you probably don't have to worry about your opponent doing any of that stuff. (____ being whatever an experienced rating is, where you're not hanging pieces for nothing, I don't play turn-based so I don't know).
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?
Wait....... it's cheating if you do that?
I meant using opening databases
Try re-reading. If that doesn't work let me know which highlighted statement is confusing you 
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?
Wait....... it's cheating if you do that?
I meant using opening databases
Try re-reading. If that doesn't work let me know which highlighted statement is confusing you
What is confusing me is that you are making no logical sense when you say that it is acceptable to use chess databases and books, but it is not acceptable to use chess engines, since they all overlap and intermingle with each other so much. That is equivalent to saying that it is acceptable to eat apple pie, but totally unacceptable to eat apples.
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?
Wait....... it's cheating if you do that?
I meant using opening databases
Try re-reading. If that doesn't work let me know which highlighted statement is confusing you
What is confusing me is that you are making no logical sense when you say that it is acceptable to use chess databases and books, but it is not acceptable to use chess engines, since they all overlap and intermingle with each other so much. That is equivalent to saying that it is acceptable to eat apple pie, but totally unacceptable to eat apples.
Well this thread is getting confuzzling
What is confusing me is that you are making no logical sense when you say that it is acceptable to use chess databases and books, but it is not acceptable to use chess engines, since they all overlap and intermingle with each other so much. That is equivalent to saying that it is acceptable to eat apple pie, but totally unacceptable to eat apples.
Why did you quote my post directed at that other guy? I made a post that explained my POV to you, why not quote that one?
I see what you're saying. The thing is though (like I said above) is opening books don't give computer's #1 choice as that would be impractical for human play (and if that's all the books were none of them would sell anyway, 1 program would = all opening books ever published).
Also, published analysis is considered reference material, which has always been acceptable to use in correspondence play. If you plug a position into an engine it's like asking a stronger player to play your game, which has always been illegal in correspondence play.
Lastly, published analysis runs out eventually or is circumvented by an odd move from your opponent. Using a chess engine is, again, like having a different player play for you in any given position, and would last the whole game making the purpose of the game itself questionable.
If the idea of it really is unappealing to you though, there is at least one group at chess.com that doesn't use any assistance for their turn-based games and plays them as if they were face to face. One was the circle of trust guys, but they seem to be gone. Maybe someone else could name another?
Circle of Trust? That's DeNiro's chess group, isn't it?
Yes
Yeah, but I wouldn't join it... he can be a real jerk 
Ish guesses, it just seems dishonest
Ish always thought/felt, the idea behind "Chess by Mail" was that you had longer to make your move, not so One can get help on their game, that OTB doesn't afford the time/freedom to do
It just seems like 'dirty pool', or like using Crib notes during a Test
The only, possible, acception, Ish sees, is when playing multiple games, one is bound to, hopefully, learn something in One, that helps the Other
So we all know that it is (of course), considered cheating to use computer engines to analyse in-progress correspondence games. And yet, I've also been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use databases, books and pre-existing human analysis of similar postions.
But that brings up the perfectly logical questions:
1) What if the game contained in the database that you are using, was played by an engine, such as a Rybka? (and there are many such games out there). Would it still considered cheating to choose your moves based on those database games?
2) What if the reference book that you are using makes extensive use of computer engines to check and verify lines? How is that different than just plugging your position directly into an engine like Houdini or Rybka?
3) What if the past game that you are referencing has extensive post game analysis added to it, all verified with powerful chess engines? Is that still considered acceptable?
What are you guys' opinions?