Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

I think that I use a modicum of understanding of opening theory when I when I choose a move from the database, and understanding of my own [chess] game.

I have a diferent point of view, I think you have handicaped yourself, I think by using database on the opening my score would easily pick up at least some 400 points on my rating, (I see your score is 200 points over your 960 score), so there is a substancial advantage on it, regardless of how much you insist it is not. The problem is the day I have not the database, for example an OTB tournament, what would I do that day?

About your statement of not good chessplayer memorize opening lines... how do you know that?

The deal is very simple, you are in a tournament have 1 hour in your clock, you can rater spend the first 20 or 30 minutes of it trying to understand the opening and think each one of your moves, or you can play an opening that you have previusly "prepare" (this means memorize on several diferent variations), this will take you trough the first 15 moves of the game in 1 or 2 minutes of your time.

I think our diference is that we both have diferent targets and so we are training in diferent ways with diferent priorities.

Anyway, how do you memorize patterns?

There are no unwritten rules in chess.

You have already been said in this thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/theory-vs-no-theory-and-my-problem

that you can´t assume that your rating will go up by 400 points by using databases, only by comparing your 960 and your online chess ratings. 

the pool of players is different.

htdavidht: I think you overestimate the impact that using an opening reference has. It generally doesn't give you an advantage over your opponent (especially if they are also using one) - it just (hopefully) helps to ensure that you reach a balanced and playable middlegame. You still have to be able to play that middlegame and any resulting endgame in order to win.

Also, if your opponent goes out of book, you usually have to work out the refutation yourself - the database won't always tell you that.

If a rule is unwritten, then it's not a valid rule.

In response to your question specifically, I have seen staff members state explicitly that it is OK to use databases in correspondence.

A written rule, you mean?

Extremely impressive typo!

Now... that's obviously an intentional typo. You shouldn't have changed it.

Wow! This thread has certainly been an eye opener for me. I didn't realize the wide acceptance of using databases / computers in correspondence games. I just assumed everyone used their brains for playing and databases for analysis afterward.  

It is not only a matter of "wide acceptance", but an explicitly stated rule.

we are in the jungle man, wake up! All is legal and often we see the street(''illegal'' schools of chess) to born heroes of this sportive art. Database chessbase is a scholastic tool that it would be better to be legal only to students or legal club players, because the other street-fighters will be smaller with a height till in shoulders of scholastic road ans so will be less trouble amongs the quality and quantity, or to be legall or illegal in chess board.

If you mean to say it doesn't matter if it's widely accepted or not because it's a rule, then I know what you mean.  However, you could have a rule that's not widely accepted.  I think there are quite a few players who intellectually know that using databases is within the rules, but choose not to use them because, for them, it "feels" like cheating.

I phrased it that way in case the Bob was not aware that it is not only widely accepted custom, but an actual rule.

For the record, it is a widely accepted rule as well.

You will find that the strongest correspondence players in the world are have incredible opening knowledge. It seems some people here might be assuming the opposite.

I play correspondence specifically for the purpose of studying openings, as do many.

When you say that "quite a few players" think that it is cheating, I would probably agree if the statement were qualified by saying "quite a few players here at chess.com who are not aware of the history of correspondence chess OUTSIDE of chess.com" .

I agree that it is a rule, and that it is widely accepted.  However, I did not say that "quite a few players think that it is cheating."  I said that players intellectually know it is a rule, but it "feels" like cheating.  Examples of this type of player could be somebody who thinks that the enormous extra time they have to make a move (as compared to live chess), and/or their ability to use the analysis board are the only advantages they want.

Stated another way, if you had a hypothetical online tournament where databases weren't allowed (and it was somehow enforced), then it might be a popular tournament.  I say hypothetical, because it would be almost impossible to prove that somebody was using a database for the first (I'm guessing) 10-15 moves.  

most rules how we interact with eachother are not written.

most ethic rules are unwritten, but I guess you obey to those as well.

I'm not worried about anything.  Most people on this site don't cheat.  So, most people playing in the hypothetical tournament would not be using databases.  You're right, this would not be an exception.

Anyway, that's not even my main point.  My main point is that for a lot of people, using databases feels like cheating even if they know that it's within the rules.

And if your opponent using a database feels like being cheated, find another format to play.

Thanks Jimmykay! I was unaware that it's an explicitly stated rule, indeed. Even so, it still feels like cheating to me.  

And to think I used to resign games where a friend offered move advice, and I felt guilty for using that move.  Or is that form of kibitzing also acceptable?  I'm guessing it is not. And I'm also guessing the hair-splitters will find a way to justify one over the other.

If my oponent goes "out the book", most likely that would mean he blunders, unless my oponent is some Master and is creating a new line on the body of opening theory.