Ethical to use the "analyse" tool?

Bringing a knife to a gun fight isn't usually against the rules. Maybe it should be.

There is no problem unless you confuse the two.  If you keep a balance between OTB and Correspondence you find they complement each other.   It has always been recommended that one of the ways to get better at OTB chess is by analysing games, which is exactly what you do when you play correspondence.

You may have a point.  The phrase is usually intended to point out the inadvisability of doing so, and that is what I was intending to counter.

However, if you replace the knife with a gun, the example still holds.  The one that knows how to most effectively use the tools given will generally succeed over the one that doesn't.

I think it was Capablanca who said that chess books can be used like glasses, to aid your sight, but some players act as if they conveyed sight. If you don't understand the resulting position getting a plus from the opening is no use whatever.

All the above points are valid...I was really pointing at those who don't play OTB...if they feel that their rating here is a true reflection...they will be in for a big surprise...and if they ever try to play OTB, they will realise that they don't have the "help" and the clock is running. OTB and playing online are two different animals...and one should not mix up playing online with "real chess"...

I think people who play a lot of OTB are able to cope with online chess better...those who play mostly online, will have a very difficult time changing to "real chess", especially if they spoil themselves by relying too much on the help features here.

As a long time OTB scholastic tournament player, I agree with this post to a degree. OTB board chess is different from online chess, but to say that online chess is not "real" chess is taking it too far.

I think that it can be considered "real" if the player actually relies on his own mind and his own decisions instead of using books and databases as a constant crutch. But it is quite true that they can end up feeling quite helpless if they suddenly transition to OTB chess, kind of like going from boxing with headgear and big gloves to bare-handed combat with no gear.

lmfao. If that was a rhetorical question, it fails miserably. Considering that everybody else is allowed to use a calculator, I imagine it will be slightly difficult to only ban younger students from using one...

OMG, another person who thinks correspondence chess is not real.

I guess we're just hallucinating then.

Funny. I thought OTB was not real.

El_Senior, let me spell it out for you... when I put the word real between those little double comma thingies...like "real", it means that the word should not be taken literally...

...take away the opening data base, the analysis board, and their engines...a lot of players here would be lost to find a good move OTB, especially where their "skills" were artificially enhanced by only playing with lots of "help" features found online...

...I read somewhere that the difference between OTB and online rating points is about 100 points...but I believe that would be true for only those who already play a lot OTB...for those who only play online, I think this difference would be much more, even 400-1000 points...of course this is only speculation and would vary from player to player...

...real would include that demon the clock, the intimidation factors ( your opponent in your face, the spectators around you, unfamiliar surroundings etc.), the noise level, the unfamiliar style of the chess pieces...and oh yes...no analysis board, no database of openings, no 3 days per move...and certainly no engines to offer you a good move...it is just you and your opponent...

 I try not to flame on these boards, but this is some of the stupidest nonsene I have ever heard.  Do you really think there is a 1000 point difference between Online and over the board ratings?  Basically that would mean someone who played master level correspondence chess would be little more than a novice if you sat them down over the board.  Nonsense.  You seem to think that correspondance players just sit around and "look up" moves.  If someone was able to play corespondance at say the 2200 to 2400 level they would have a very high level of chess knowledge.  Yes, they may be somewhat weaker in an over the board setting if unacustomed to that style of play, but a strong player has just as deep a level of chess knowledge, if not deeper, than an over the board player.  If they didn't they would never get anywhere.  Documented theory only takes you so far, and in sub-master level chess players leave theory early.  Without a understanding of both positional play and tactics one would be lost once the opponent would go "off book".  Someone who only plays correspondance would have less practice with things like time managment, etc, so there rating would likely be somewhat lower, but to say that it would be 1000 points less is total garbage.

I'm looking through my database for games that I won because of database research. I'm finding only games where database research helped me reach a middlegame position that allowed me to find some tactics. This game is typical:

This idea that a class player can play like a GM simply given more time to decide /research his moves is complete nonsense. This type of thing is ONLY done on the internet and has only been done since engines became very strong and very affordable. 

Yes, and there are "fish " here ( OTB ) that have chess.com turn based ratings higher than GM Julio Becerra..... thanks to strong engines ofcourse. 

Sofademon, I am sorry to have awaken the "flaming demon" inside of you...maybe my high range of 1000 got you erked...but that range would take care of those few here who have very poor skills but rely on their best friend "Mr. Rybka"...the average would be around say 700, with the lower range of about 400...of course, like I said...this is just my opinion...and would only pertain to those players who don't play OTB...do you see it more like 400-700?...the exact numbers are irrelevant, the main point has been understood...even by you...

...don't be surprised about the "cheating" implication...why do you think "Rybka" (and his off springs) is selling so well? You really believe "fan boy/girl" only use the engine to analyse?...the proof is in the pudding they say...have a look at the number of accounts closed for cheating, and you will be shocked...

...so here are the 2011 figures so far -

Jan - 144

Feb - 202

Mar - 98 (so far)

Total for 2011 - 444

It's funny how a titled player doesn't have the top rating.

I have seen 2200 players that don't do that well in correspondence.  They sometimes are very pragmatic in their OTB play and will settle for a good move as opposed to the "best" move.  Also some of them have openings that are postionally suspect, relying on their tactical skill and ability to get their opponent out of their comfort zone in OTB play.  I sure that they could become good correspondence players if they wanted to put in the effort.  It is interesting that Purdy became interested in correspondence chess when he was beaten by someone whom he could beat easily  in OTB play.

Why is that funny ?  Its actually to be expected with the growing use of engines in online play. One of the top 50 here is only a B class player OTB...... yeah, right. 

Where the top correspondance players in history before the current computer era always titled players? I think its funny because titled players aren't better in longer time controls, maybe trusting the instinct too often ?

Before computers became so strong the top correspondence players were also very strong in OTB play. There were certainly no class players among the top correspondence players back then. Don't be so gullible.