Is using an opening database considered cheating?

No, the book doesn't tell you how to play the whole game.  It just lets you prepare for the opening.

Think of daily chess as an open book examination.  You have access to the textbooks, but still have to think about how to apply the information to the question.  In daily chess, you have access to the books and databases, but still have to figure out how to apply the information to your game

An engine gives you the answers without you doing any work; a book gives you advice, but only gives specific answers for the opening, and only in specific lines.  As soon as the game leaves book, you no longer have specific answers, only general principles.

I've actually heard Master level players say on forums here that such and such an opponent beat them regularly with such and such an opening....AFTER the game they ran it through an engine to find out the refute to that line and beat the opponent next time....that is not cheating, it is preparation, most of them are masters because they are willing to work for it....

^ exactly.

My question is directed to MGleason...

Can you please further elaborate on the distinction between static resources and dynamic resources pertaining to reference material. Thank you in advance.

Somewhere along this thread, someone says "asking a friend" is also a form of cheating. I remember playing here during recess at school (midddle school) and my friends and I gang up whoever we're playing. We are all beginners, and just learning the game. Nothing at stake except point ratings...so, did we cheat? 

Yes to post #28. The determination is it was a rated game. Your opponent unfairly lost rating points. You misrepresented yourself. Your opponent had every expectation to play 1 person, not several. Next time play unrated and make it clear they are playing several new, learning players and it's no problem.

A static resource is a resource such as a book that does not change to interact with the position in your game.  They may cover specific opening moves, but once you leave book (which you inevitably will unless you and your opponent follow the same master game all the way through), all they can do is give some specific principles which you must figure out how to apply.

A dynamic resource is something like an engine or a friend.  These can look at the exact position you have on the board in your game right now and give specific advice that is tailored specifically to your current game, no matter what stage of the game you're in.

Yes, that does count as a form of cheating.  If you do it unrated and your opponent knows what's going on, that's OK.  You could also set up an online club and play vote chess together.

@professorpownall and mcgleason, thank you for pointing that out. Our apologies to the few that we defeated. For the many that we gave point ratings and beaten us so bad, you are welcome. At our level that time ( perhaps combine average of less than 1100) I found it more confusing that there are 4 or more ideas what the next move is without any proper guidance or explanation as to exactly where we are heading....it's more of a case, " I told you so" when we get mated. Lol. Anyway, thanks for the lesson and insight.

have you actually read "world champion openings "? yes of course anyone can play different moves in those games, but any intelligent creature can find the solutions with their own brain..

   So if i play a game accurately with my own brain, a software can pick up cheatdetection and the website can accuse you of cheating and ban you regaurdless...

    example if you run paul morphys games through cheat detection , some of those games, are played with almost 100% accuracy. yet their was no engines back then.. Its almost sickening that your not allowed to play chess accurately , how does 1 expect to win?? and world champion openings does go over ENTIREgames.. thats how i know mgleason hasnt read it..

I am a bit confused then: why do you consider the endgame tables a dynamic resource? Once all the analysis has been finished, they present a raw static data anyone can access, and they by no means provide feedback on your particular game. I personally don't see much difference between endgame tables and opening databases in this regard, they are both just data anyone can access to either improve their game or to find the best move in the current position. Sure, opening databases are more universal, in that every game starts in the same position, but very few endgames copy each other, so learning them in advance is more helpful - but it seems like a purely semantic difference to me.

operation of a tablebase during gameplay is &^$#edup , and before anyone says WCO dosent go over entiregames, and sidelines ... go take a look and see that you are rong..   since using that book isnt considered cheating ill just decide to go piss people off and use it in standard and dailygames... how bout someone use it against mgleason???? see how hed like that....

      im better than that..

I haven't posted anything since the last 25 comments. This forum is heading another way.

By the way, David, I don't see what was wrong with former title that urged you to change it. Wasn't everything the same thing? Did I break any rules?

Of course it is. Therefore all computers cheat.

No, no rules were broken - I just felt that the additional detail in the title meant that people would have a more accurate idea of what this thread is about before clicking on it, instead of thinking "Is WHAT considered cheating?" It means you don't get people coming in to the thread thinking one thing and then discovering that it's something else.

Oh, okay. That's fine. I thought I violated forum rules.

Go ahead and use World Champion Openings in your daily games.  Sure, it covers some entire games, but your games aren't going to follow those games for more than 10-15 moves most of the time.  Either you or your opponent will deviate from the book move, often within 10 moves and almost always before 20 moves.  After that, the book no longer gives you all the moves.  It may still give you some general principles that are useful, but you have to figure out how to apply those principles.

For example, take this position from one of my recent games.  It's white's move:

World Champion Openings will not tell you what to play in this position.  We have left book.  It may still give some guidelines as to how each side should try to play, but you would have to figure out how to take those principles and turn them into moves.

It is simply not possible for a book to cover every possible moves and tell you what to play in each position; it can give specific lines until you leave book and then give some general guidelines, but cannot do anything more than that.  It does not give specific advice tailored specifically for your current game.

An engine, on the other hand, will look at this position and tell you exactly what to play.

Here's a sample endgame tablebase: http://chessok.com/?page_id=361

And endgame tablebase is a database of all possible endgame positions with a certain number of pieces; there are tablebases for all endgames with six pieces or fewer, and for some seven-piece endgames.  These are not permitted in daily chess because you can enter a specific position and get a precise answer of the best move.

If, on the other hand, you get into a rook-and-pawn endgame, it's entirely appropriate to look up an article or book on the Lucena position.  For example, you could look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucena_position.  That gives you general principles as for how to play, but you still have to take those principles and figure out how to apply them to the position in your game.  It would be a rare coincidence for the example position from the article or book to precisely match the position in your game.

As the old saying goes .... too many cooks spoil the broth.  

Computers make different types of moves than humans do.  The staff at chess.com can tell if you made a 1500-level human move or a 3000-level computer move.   Many of the computer moves baffle even GM's, so they are easy to detect.   They are not the same types of moves that humans make (even great, legendary players like Fischer, Kasparov or Morphy).