Question

I just dropped this masterpiece on a titled player finishing it up today.  It's my first "perfect" game where analysis indicated no errors at all.  You'd think I'd be proud, but I feel somewhat ashamed because I have example games in my DB right up to the end so in reality, I never played a move and he lost to a GM.  I know I'm allowed to do research and all, but this one feels a little dirty.

It also makes me wonder about my own post mortem analysis.  If I end up at move 13 in a game down a line that I have already played before and put through Fritz for analysis, can I refer to the analysis of that line from a different game?  I only play a few openings so I'm starting to acquire quite a DB of games with computer analysis and notes referencing books with GM level analysis.  Seems legal under the letter of the rules, but it's like having Tiviakov and Fritz whispering in my ear.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=51406711

Why not just analysis by yourself for just a while. Part of correspondence chess is exactly that. It is hard work, but hard work is part of anything fruitful (you do want to become a better chessplayer and not just win games, is that right?)

It's perfectly normal, and according to the sites rules. You can blame him for playing "logical" moves without any preparation.

In that game, Black is lost after 9...a6? but it's not YOUR fault...

Perhaps what irks me is that he is not willing to (1) take a chance (2) think  (3) work for point or (4) being anything else other than a leech.

Wow, way to make it personal, Rob.  Nice to know that I can still be surprised by the way people will behave on the internet.  I'd be willing to bet that if we'd met in person we could have had a civil conversation about this, but something about the internet makes people go straight to name calling and character assassination.  

Thanks for the insight pfren, I appreciate your taking the time to post.

Burnelr, I can understand the difficulty with your situation, as with resources such as TWIC with analysis in chessbase or lines that you've played before OTB and researched with a computer what optimal play was it can be hard to feel like you're the one playing the game.  It's complications like this that make correspondence chess operate in a gray area at high levels, where it's hard to tell the difference between someone theoretically well prepared who has previously studied the line with an engine against someone who is using an engine.  I agree with pfren though in that it's perfectly valid to punish someone if they play into a line that you've found in another source - Chess moves aren't copyrighted!