Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

I totally admit that your personal preferences are as valid as mine.

I like that there is theoretical development in chess, so that the understanding of chess can improve over time and the chess games of tomorrow will be superior to the chess games of today.

On my own modest level, I like it that using correspondence chess I can focus on developing my positional understanding. (I prefer books over databases, so it's not quite clear how the human element is diminished).

I like it that I can play a game that is more than a blunder festival without being a master.

Your mileage may vary.

Ironically, Game Explorer has some odd bugs today, and using it would not be in your interest!

[REFERENCE NEEDED]

if one goes to the game of a couple of other playes that is in progress, at the bottom of the onscreen board there is a "comment" choice with the stipulation that the players will not be able to read the comments until after the game.  an obvious reason for that, correct? i had a case of a game where my oppenent "messaged" another player,apparently had them look at "our" game, asking advice about whether he should or should not offer a draw.  i thought that was "chicken"...no offense to the bird.   if one brings another "player" or "electronic" third person into the mix in my mind, is overstepping the bounds of "fairplay". i do the "daily puzzle" daily. i like the "computer workout". i like youtubes of the likes of "anand's 5 minute game". i can continually educate myself and it may be the case that i change tactics mid-game.  fresh discoveries could happen on a court, ball diamond, cricketfield, soccerfield while a game is in progress.   as to the argument above about the phantom soccer goalie ? ill borrow from a wise chessmate who said, "you embarrass yourself"   much below the usual, "apples and organges" comparison. the crux for me is the "third person" input analogy.

Well, your opponent violated the written rules of this site. That's not what this thread is about.

I strongly suspect that your claim that correspondance chess "diminishes the human element" is grounded mostly on ignorance that on a valid reasoning.

I was calling you out to provide an argument.

You can now proceed to ignore the points I raised and trash-talk me.

Inspired by fiddletim's post, I take this occasion to ask an off topic question that has been troubling me all my life: Am I the only one who is wondering why there are people who have difficulties comparing apples and oranges?

Not necessarily.

Concerning the reasoned debate: since the OP's question has been answered (nobody would seriously assume that there is an unwritten rule against it when there is an explicit written rule allowing it), what exactly is it that you are debating now?

Interesting threads get very few replies, a thread with an obvious answer which should last 1 post gets 236 so far.

A thoughtful post but this is a chess website. That might be why yours didn't get more replies. And it's probably offensive to the majority of people. I personally never look in off topic.

The exception proves the rule.

The OP was too long for me to read. The same probably applies for many other potential posters.

By the definition of rule, an exception would disprove it.

I think it's because prove used to be used to mean test.

Yeah, if you want replies, your post should be short and stupid.

That would make sense.

this is a common English expression with a long history. Feel free to research it.

It is not that it is too long, but it is condescending and poorly written.

Regardless if it's common or not, and regardless if it has a long history; it's a false statement. Using the current definition of prove, anyways.