Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

You are correct that you are not allowed to take adice from friends. That would be cheating.

The difference between consulting a book and getting advice from a friend is more thatn splitting hairs for two reasons:

1) Your friend is capable of analysis. (Chess-playing software is also NOT allowed in most correspondence play.)

2) Your opponent does not have equal access to your friend.

The main point behind the design of 960 is not to play with diferent people, the point is don't play from memory. And in modern days It looks like a good option for people who don't want to play with databases.

And you can say as many times as you want to that there is zero advantage in using database, hence the quality of your game is the same with it as in normal chess and whitout it as in 960... but  I have got to the point where I am prety sure the use of the database improves the quality of the game, way way more than learning opening by memory.

Said otherwise, your friend is a dynamic resource that will offer advice that depends on the position, whereas a database is a static resource (it will tell you about Karpov-Kasparov's Nimzo-Indian 90 no matter what game you are in).

What's different though is that endgame tablebases are banned, which I cannot really justify. I understand that opening databases won't win games whereas you can just follow blindly endgame tablebases so I have the gut feeling it makes for "more real" chess but it is not a real argument.

Jimmy, I think we should just agree to disagree agreeably on this. 

My vision for playing a chess game (in any format) is for my opponent and I to work out our moves in our own heads. No books. No videos. No friends. No databases. No engines.  My brain vs. your brain.

Then after the game is completed (or before the game begins, obviously), consult as many resources as you want to find out ways you could / should have moved instead.

I know....it's "pie in the sky" thinking. I accept that.

Yes.

This is not my case, I consider the database is just replacing the memory of the player, not the part where still have to understand the reasons why the moves are there.

This is a reasonable expectation, just one of a person that is not familiar with how correspondence chess differs from live chess.

Thanks, pawpatrol. I found this topic to be very interesting, and like I said before, also enlightening.  I was completely unaware that using databases / engines in correspondence chess is within the boundaries of the rules. 

I was not aware that we were disagreeing, nor did I realize that I was being disagreeable.

If you prefer not to play correspondence chess because you do not like the rules, I have no issue with that.

It really comes down to three options:

1. Simply accept that your opponents may be using these resources
2. Find like-minded individuals you trust to not use these resources and limit your play to that pool of players
3. Find another format where these resources are prohibited and play it instead

Doesn't have to be true.

Sure, but beside the point.

If you're directly replying to me, I never said that I "think opening research in correspondence chess is cheating..."  I said to a lot of people it feels like cheating even if they intellectually know that it is not.

I'll continue to play correspondence chess the way I want to play it, and I won't spend much time worrying about my misconceptions or how right or wrong I am.

I think TheGrobe nailed it with his three options.  Option 3 is my choice.

Jimmy, I didn't mean to infer that you were being disagreeable. I was merely attempting to point out that I find the rules of correspondence chess to be questionable. Apparently, you do not. That is where we disagree. That's all.

And, you're free to disagree with the rules and still play correspondence chess.  I'm getting a little annoyed at the folks doing the whole "if you don't love it you can leave it" thing.

Then, I don't know why you quoted me?  Please refrain from using snarky remarks.

You don't have to love it, or leave it, but if you choose to do neither then you also shouldn't complain about it.

You have already been told that engines are not allowed in chess.com.

And that´s also in the rules.

Well, to be clear, the rules here state no engines.  Correspondence chess as more broadly defined usually does allow them.

Engines are also not allowed in the USCF Correspondence Tournaments and in IECC. 

But they are allowed on ICCF, LSS/IECG, Remotechess.com, etc.

I simply ask now before playing someone of they use database if so I just find someone else to play and if not then I play them. I try to play every correspondence game as similar to a OTB as I can meaning I don't use any of the chess.com help features (I did use to) and try to play those players who feel the same way. Of course the person could just lie to me or use a feature later during the but meh nothing I can do about that but hope they don't. Even so I still like correspondence play very much as a training tool for OTB play