franky: Using databases is cheating.
Ziryab (or others) : Using databases is not cheating. (Reason(s) mentioned and explained)
franky: Using databases is cheating.
(Same reasons that were not responded to or new reasons why using databaes is not cheating posted)
Repeat the above several times.
I should probably stop tracking comments. 
R those who always deviate early scared of playing real chess?
You're talking about online chess games where people have over 24 hours to make a move, yet you say that you want people to play real chess? In my opinion real chess is standard time, and preferrably 3 hours per side. Afterall, that is what they play with in the world championships isn't it? It doesn't get more real than that.
So the point is, 24 hour games are not real chess anyway.
i don't understand why this has gone on for 6 pages. it's very simple, if you don't like correspondence chess, don't play it.
lmao...i like to take time....why should I play cheats?..if prople wanna use a db they shold play a computer.?
Most online players dont use a db....my question is users and
Most online chess players do not know how to checkmate with two bishops
Users and non users should be segratated...hi z u wanna real game?
Yep
Users and non users should be segratated...hi z u wanna real game?
They are mostly segregated by rating already. Most players under 1800 do not use databases, do not know how to win elementary pawn endings, and leave book between move four and seven in most openings anyway. At that level, even if your opponent is using a database, your violation of time-tested opening principles will force him or her out of the databases rapidly. Above 1800, most players know their openings well, but probably also use databases to enhance this knowledge, to steer the game to positions known to be favorable, or to try new openings under the pressure of competition and time.*
*The idea that there is no time pressure when someone has three or five days to make a move is not one widely held by those who invest time and energy into researching new lines. For example, in the game annotated below, I had only a few days to study the games of GM Fernando Peralta and to decide whether to adopt a seemingly safer plan, or whether to employ his aggressive system. In either case, my opponent would have me out of databases in a couple more moves. Which plan would give me the best prospects of playing the position well?
The game might have continued 21...Qxf6, which struck me as Black's only reply. Then, 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Nce4 (I planned 23.Bc5+, which Stockfish 3 considers an inaccurate move order. 23...Rde7 24.Nce4 Qf5 reaching the same position as the main computer line) 23...Qf5 24.Bc5+ Rde7.
It was my second biggest upset in Online chess on Chess.com.
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/07/busting-benoni.html
Ok bad....its still annoying me but ur correct...by the way football is played with the foot...:) thanks...bit drunk..but i'll let it go..:)
Um... Why is this guys post worth reading again?
Most online chess players do not know how to checkmate with two bishops
Just to be stupid funny, I guess you don't need to "know", just were on wikipedia to look it up. (for the record - I learned this in High School)
I'm certain that there are many players below 1400 who have this skill, but that they are in the minority. I too, learned it in high school. Probably from a book, although I do not remember which book. I may have simply worked it out myself through hours of practice after reading that I should be able to do it in 35 moves (or something like that).
because its relavant..:)...z ive allready offered to play u for points...put up or shut up..simples
thanks for following me khaos...mmmmm:)
who's the fool khaos...¿
because its relavant..:)...z ive allready offered to play u for points...put up or shut up..simples
You have demonstrated:
1. Unwillingness to support your claim with logical argument, nor to drop your claim after it has been thrice refuted.
2. Poor sportsmanship in a challenge that you accepted. That challenge was solicited by you, and was offered as a courtesy to you (despite the fact that you are an inveterate troll).
3. That you spurn any opportunity to learn from the game in question.
Even so, if there was some sort of equal stakes, I might yet take you up on your offer. But you are asking me to stake more than fifty against a bet of zero. What you offer is another chance for me to teach chess to an unwilling pupil who continues to allege that the rules of the game are somehow unfair, even though your skill is far below a level that would make the rule relevant. There is no reason to consult a database in a game against a player with your skills. It is not even possible after half a dozen moves because you have already blundered positionally.
Why would I play a game in which I have nothing to gain? I cannot raise my rating. I cannot gain experience. I cannot learn something about chess. I cannot even practice tactics.
Well, most CC players like to play with databases--and before there were databases, they liked to play with opening books and copies of the Chess Informants. Dedicated CC players are like research scientists. always searching for the ultimate truth in a position. You may not care to play that way, but there's no reason why all the people who enjoy playing their way would change just to accomodate you.
Also, I don't think your analogy to slavery works at all! I can't remember one case on an innocent person being kidnapped, dragged away in chains, and forced by a brutal master to play correspondence chess.
Chessmicky, I agree with everything that you so eloquently stated, up to that last part about slavery. For the record, I must report that I was abducted by aliens who forced me to play correspondence chess. What's worse, they made me play the White side of the Ponziani Moves were relayed between the Mother Ship and the planet Zargon.
That proves not only that aliens play chess, but that they know their openings. You would have been better off with one of their notorious probes.
...and canned chili.
I like and use the database in correspondence sometimes, it's nice to get used to new openings. For example I haven't played the open sicilian with white in like 10 years, but I want to switch back to it.
Before I play it OTB I defenitly want a lot of practise games to get a line that I like against all the different sicilians. So yeah I play correspondence games while looking through GM games and if there are videos on that opening I'll watch them as well.
If my opponents uses it, it's great as well. I play some offbeat lines and most of the time OTB my opponents don't know the line. So they'll deviate early and we don't reach the critical mainline positions. DB users will play those positions so I can get more experience in them.
Ofcourse I don't use the db in lines that I think I know well and play OTB.
It can highlight mistakes in your opening because sometimes you end up in a bad position in a line you thought you knew.
I can understand the point made by our TS, it's cheating in blitz, it's cheating OTB chess, why is it allowed here? Correspondence chess is like a completely different game though, irl they are even allowed to use engines..