Ethical to use the "analyse" tool?

I can only speak from my own experience, but my chess.com rating is about 600 points higher than my current OTB rating (which has dropped about 200 points over the years). I don't use books or engines, but I do make extensive use of the analysis board. I only play 3 day games, and only have about 3 or 4 going at any one time. I put the higher rating down to lack of pressure. No time pressure, nobody standing around watching the game, and the ability to leave the games and come back later for a fresh look.

Fezzik wrote: "The argument that the best player in correspondence isn't a titled player has nothing to do with my statement that a titled player will never be U1600 in correspondence unless they time out in all their games, and a true U1400 OTB player can never be +2200 in correspondence.  Generally, the avid amateur, rated 1800-2200 OTB, have been the ones to do the best in correspondence chess before the age of computer. This seems to be the threshhold of understanding that benefits chess research.  I challenge anyone to find an OTB player rated +2200 who is U1600 and does not lose almost all of his games due to time outs. I also challenge anyone to find a true U1400 OTB player who made CC master or above before the computer age."

The fallacy of overly specific demands that ignore the general issue. Fact is, a race car that can rocket boost off the start line, even if the rocket only lasts a few seconds and the car is slightly slower than the oppenent when running only on the engine, is still going to have a large advantage.

In the same sense, an average 1500 player that uses databases and books and engines to play a 'perfect' opening and have an ideal pawn and piece structue is going to still have an advantage over an 1800-1900 player who uses only his mind, even if the average player stops using his resources in the middle game. Because as every chess player should know, the better your pieces are set up initially, the easier it will be to organize attacks and defend your own army.

Ultimately, whilst they may garner more knowledge for the future and possible a better foundation, those who Play chess while relying on the myriads of, to use Teary's example "Boosts", are cheating themselves .. and while it may be daunting at times, those relying strictly on their minds .. are building, in theory, stronger Minds, and, again in theory, will be in a better position when playing Matches wqithout these boosts availible

To dumb it down a bit .. it's like the Woman who uses Silicone .. while it makes her feel Bigger and Better .. eventually the Silicone is gone .. and she must learn to live on "what God gave her"

Without the understanding of positional and tactical demands that come from experience and skill, the advantage that an opening database and the analysis board can give will be insignificant.  Give me a "winning" early middle-game position against any GM (equivalent to using an opening database) and an analysis board, and I guarantee that the odds of me winning the game are still low.  I simply don't have the chessic understanding that they do.  I may be able to see simple tactical threats for each side using the analysis board, but they will see them, their proper counters, AND will be able to subtly maneuver their pieces into a dominating position, all while leaving me wondering just how I went wrong.

A weak player with the analysis board might say "Aha!  I have a tactic here."  A stronger player would, a few moves before that, say "Aha!  I can set up a tactic in a few moves."  An even stronger player would say "Aha!  My opponent can set up a tactic in a few moves, so I will make this little move right now so that if he tries to set up that tactic, I can counterattack with this other idea, based on how he is over-extending himself in attempting his tactic.  If he doesn't try that tactic, my move will still help my overall position because of this, that, and whatever else it does."

Using the car analogy, it may not matter if you have a head start if you don't know how to draft, or know about hugging the turns, or how to see and avoid subtle road hazards, or probably numerous other things that may affect such a race.

Yes, this is true today but it hasnt always been true.  

I dont believe that a player can raise their level of play by more than 2 classes simply through spending more time or using books and databases. This means an A class player of 1800 might play at NM or FM level at best..... even this is a LOT. This would mean a 2400 IM might raise his level to 2800 which is elite/world championship level. There is at least one sub 1700 ( OTB ) player on this site that has a turn based rating over 2700 !  I am sorry but this just is not possible without using an engine = cheating. Some turnbased/postal sites like ICCF allow engine use. I guess they figure they cant stop it anyway so why fight it ?  

I use a LOT of time on my difficult games here and cannot raise my own rating 2 classes higher than my otb rating , why should I believe some 1600 can ?  Chess skill afterall is about understanding and I dont believe any 1600 player ( established rating ) understands more about chess than I do..... just as I dont understand nearly as much as a player 600 points higher rated than me.... 

"I personally would question it, because with the availability and size of current chess databases, and with the quantity of opening books out there, I could essentially go half a game without ever having to think or make a move for myself."

So?  Those of us who are too lazy to study shouldn't question the ethical behaviour of those who do study.

I think laziness is vastly underrated as a reason for being lousy at chess.  I'll get into very complicated positions, wander into the fog, grasping at that which is buried under pawns and pieces, and then think, "Aw, to hell with it.  This move doesn't look like it loses immediately.  Maybe it will turn out all right."

I don't feel like I'm cheated out of the win for either type of laziness.

Reb wrote-

I dont believe that a player can raise their level of play by more than 2 classes simply through spending more time or using books and databases. This means an A class player of 1800 might play at NM or FM level at best..... even this is a LOT. This would mean a 2400 IM might raise his level to 2800 which is elite/world championship level. There is at least one sub 1700 ( OTB ) player on this site that has a turn based rating over 2700 !  I am sorry but this just is not possible without using an engine = cheating. Some turnbased/postal sites like ICCF allow engine use. I guess they figure they cant stop it anyway so why fight it ?  

I use a LOT of time on my difficult games here and cannot raise my own rating 2 classes higher than my otb rating , why should I believe some 1600 can ?  Chess skill afterall is about understanding and I dont believe any 1600 player ( established rating ) understands more about chess than I do..... just as I dont understand nearly as much as a player 600 points higher rated than me....

That's >1000 more than his OTB rating...

Not that it really proves anything but in online correspondence I'm rated 600+ points over my OTB rating, with minor use of the opening explorer here supplemented by some opening books and a little study. I haven't even broken out the databases yet, so I imagine I could see a decent rating increases if I did (and I used them properly).

Of course, at the lower end of the rating scale this might be easier to do than it would be higher up. I will say, like most people that think they are underrated OTB , that I am probably a bit underrated OTB than what I should be capable of. I have very inconsistent results in OTB tournament play, so my rating reflects that.

That's absolutely not true. If you use the tools appropriately, you will eventually learn what works and what doesn't and will begin to need them less and less as time goes by. You learn by practicing, even with aids. Many times I will decide on a couple of lines I may want to play, if it is in an opening I'm not really familiar with and I will check with the opening explorer here or in opening books to see how my choices fare or if they are even in theory anymore.

Sometimes, my choices are bad and I'll reavaluate why and possibly pick a better move from the database or theory. As I play more and more games, especially in those openings I target, I will get a better feel for them and will learn what generally works for me and what doesn't. There are openings that I don't concult the opening books until I'm further in, if at all.

It really isn't any different than analyzing after the game and fixing your repertoire then (with books and databases). You just get to analyze better during the game, by comparing with books and databases, and get to experiment with changes while playing rather than waiting until after the game. You can learn that way and become more proficient with OTB play, even when those tools are not available.

Of course, just mimicking the databases and books will do little for you. However, even in that case, you are likely to pick up some opening theory that way.

Apparently it is NOT working for you according to your most recent tourney results in which you managed only 1 win and that against a player with a 557 provisional rating. You won that one game, lost 3 and apparently withdrew. The evidence is not upholding what you are telling us here...... 

Actually, the tournament was a 4 round event. It appears that a couple of other games were played and instead of putting it in a separate section they included them as extra "rounds" in the tournament (and I just noticed they rated it as G/80 instead of G/60 as it should have been).

As I mentioned, I have poor performances in tournaments. In the case of the loss against the unrated player, I was moving too quickly after a Bishop sac, thinking I had adequate defense. I fell to a tactic that I didn't see coming. The other games I lost were against players 500 and 600 rating points higher than me. I haven't fully analyzed those games but I'm pretty sure I came out of the opening close to even on both; the last game I miscalculated an exchange but still managed to hold for awhile after that (not sure how well for sure, until I get it into an engine or have a much stronger player analyze it).

In the loss against the unrated player I was actually up two pawns after the 8th move, with no weaknesses, played some moves that weren't the best giving one pawn back a few moves later, and then blundered on that tactic.

That says more about my tournament experience, learning to fully analyze my positions, and not moving too quickly. I guarantee I could show you some of my online games here that show the same weaknesses. It is something I continue to work on and has nothing to do with how well I know my openings or what I learn by using opening books and databases. Middlegame problems and tactical oversights are a different thing altogether.

My problem with tournaments will only be solved by playing more tournaments and practicing what I learn (time management, not moving too quickly, fully analyzing all moves, etc). I only have 16 regular rated tournaments over the past 2 1/2 years. Only 4 of those since I started studying more actively in 2010.

The evidence is in my games here; that I am rated 600+ points higher than my OTB rating. As has been mentioned in this topic, coming out of the opening a little better or even has no real impact on the game if you can't convert it in the middle or endgame. I have a lot of work still to go and using the tools that correspondence allows is helping me learn what works and what doesn't work in the opening. The solution to the rest is more practice: more tactics, more games, more tournaments.