R database players scared of playing real chess?

A bit of advice Frankyyy?  Leave the notebook computer at home or the office next time you go to the pub. 

If chess.com allowed people to use chess engines to find their moves, would it be cheating for people to use chess engines to find their moves?

Clearly, it would not be cheating.  I've heard of other sites that allow computer usage and I don't play on them because of it, but I don't consider players on that site who use computers to be cheating.

In short, if chess.com allows databases, then it's not cheating to use databases on chess.com.

Sometimes I choose not to use databases to make sure I don't rely on them too much, but most of the time I use them because it really helps me learn the openings so I'm better prepared for OTB play.

There's a difference between cheating according to the rules and an unfair advantage.  If they allowed bikes in marathons then it'd practically be a bike race.  Conversely, rich people cheat in the legal and education systems by having more money than others don't have access to.  Is it legal?  Yes.  Is it fair?  No, but life isn't fair.  Is steroid use fair?  The players are using their own strength from their own bodies so I don't personally think so.  It isn't healthy, but it falls under regulatory, not actual cheating. 

Ignorance and desperation are often taken advantage of in the developing world and in the past, it isn't fair that someone who doesn't have access to books on physics be at the mercy of cheap conversion tricks.  If a Jesus statue has buoyancy of course it'll float!  

European explorers would tell Native Americans and African tribes that X object was currency, when it wasn't recognized legal tender in Europe.  Funny thing is, the Natives themselves recognized it as currency (remember the space money from South Park?  Yeah, like that) and traded it amongst themselves!  Beyond the scope of the topic, but still. 

yep....

Let's make it happen!

R u lemmings? I still say 80 percent of online players play aid free...why use simething to aid ur game...if u wanna learn do it against a computer..not v a human who just likes this format

You're asking to change the rules to a type of chess that's been played by these same rules since before you were born. No one agrees with you, you're on your own here, play OTB if you don't think it's real chess, nothing is stopping you

[Citation needed]

Ladylumps....i refer back to my contreverasal comment...black people were slaves ....life has changed...the english used to piss on us irish....i say the use of a db is defunct in this day and age....learn v a computer..

Chess is a game :) please treat it so...if ur bad loser or love ur rating wtf...go learn some manners

I love chess....my point is lets play

Fair enough, the times are different now, we don't keep slaves and computers beat the world champions, but i do have one question for you - after they make databases illegal to use for games, how would they go about enforcing that? would it be cheating to look at any master game during the time you have a correspondance game going? What if I happen to be going through master games beginning with the Nimzo-Indian while coincidentally playing a Nimzo in a correspondance game? Is what I'm doing cheating? How can anyone possibly try to enforce this rule

I think it's all the better for you to play Online chess without any use for reference materials. Much like taking an open-book exam, with only an No. 2 pencil in hand. Whether this is how you've gotten by in life off-the-board, or not...you should feel gratified , not alienated, by being sucessful (thus far) playing with an OTB mentality in an correspondence (postal) format. One would think.

(You could just play 960 Online chess...definitely no database usage there or one hasn't been created....yet! Heh)

Correspondance games are usually of an unbelievably high quality.  Pfren here posted a game where an engine incorrectly said white was winning but the bishop was locked, so Pfren was basically playing up a piece.  Likewise, when centauring analysis on a beginner's game here the computer correctly said white was winning by six points, but its suggested line was the white king running up to a corner blocked in by his h-pawn and could only parry black's queen checks... yet still had an advantage.  My centaur line was actually winning for white as he could use his pawns as cover from checks, and black's queen didn't have time for Qxb3.

However, even world champions threw away won queen endgames (Reubin Fine/Pal Benko says things like, "here, Lasker threw away the win and allowed Pillsbury to draw via perpetual" and such) so it's a bit much asking a beginner to play g4!, activate the king, utilize checks to win some of black's queenside pawns, then run the king over and calculate enough to avoid perpetual.  Heck, even a 3200 (yes, ludicrous inflation, but it's still a strong machine) ELO machine on unleashed played a drawing line it thought was winning! 

This was the position in question:

Copy and paste from my blog. The link is at the bottom of the post. Use the search feature to find "databases" and the two articles that I pasted will be among the hits.

That's an old post and game. My engines are stronger now, and I am too. I could revisit the analysis if you think there is an error. 

I don't know where you get that data, but it is pretty easy to discover that something more than 80% are below 1600. Your 1631 puts you at the 89th percentile.

Think of it: you eschew databases and you are better than almost 90% of those who play correspondence chess on this site. I'd say that it's a fair bet that either 80% are not using databases, or that it's not helping their win/loss percentage if they are.

When you climb into the top 5%, however, I'll wager that 90% of your opponents are using databases. 

Thanks for confirming my thoughts zyrab.....ladylumps...never gonna stop cheats...but my main gripe is cc r condoning it..;(

You really need to watch your language. Engine use is cheating, and the list of those banned here yesterday is long. Database use is not cheating, nor is it detectable. Banning databases is not only unenforceable, but it ignores both the practical realities and the appeal of correspondence chess.

The last time that I did not have a correspondence game in progress was the summer of 1996. My continuous training and continuous correspondence play assures that by mere random chance I will be looking in a book that offers help in a position I have in an ongoing game at least once per week.

It's a lot different if I have agreed to play one game without reference to databases. I play about 40% of my games that way, anyway, including nearly all of my games on two iPhone apps. On one of these apps, I need to finish about thirty more games before my rating is high enough to attract highly skilled opponents. At that point, my db use may increase.