R database players scared of playing real chess?


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..


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. Tongue Out


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?



frankyyy27 wrote:

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?

Busting the Benoni

The second strongest opponent that I have defeated on Chess.com is rated more than 200 Elo above me.* We met for two games in an ambitiously titled tournament created by a member who is no longer on the site. It's called the chess.com championships, but has no official status as such. In our first game, he outmaneuvered me in the middlegame of a French Tarrasch when I was playing for a draw. In order to remain in the tournament and advance to the next round, I needed a win with White.

Stripes,J (2121) -- Internet Opponent (2325) [A67]
chess.com championships - Round 3 Chess.com, 28.04.2013

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+

Black to move

When I was playing the Benoni as often as possible several years ago, the Flick-Knife Attack gave me the most trouble.


Some of the trouble that I faced was due to playing 8...Nbd7 here. In consequence of playing the wrong knight, White's thematic e4-e5 comes immediately.


I opted for the third most popular move here, in part to test the level of my opponent's preparation. In The Modern Benoni (1994), David Norwood alleges that this move is purposeless as it permits Black to go through with the usual queenside expansion. Norwood asserts that 9.a4 is the correct move.

9...a6 10.Bd3 b5 11.0–0 0–0 12.Kh1 Re8

White to move

This position appears a mere 72 times in ChessBase Online, and yet it should seem to be the most likely position after White's uncommon 9.Nf3. Indeed, this position is found in line 4 of A67 in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. The principal move given there is 13.Qe1. Reference games are presented also for 13.Be3, which is not recommended, and 13.Bc2.


Before I played my ninth move, I had looked forward in the databases and had gone through several games that reached this position. These games were in the spirit of an all out attack on the kingside before Black could finish untangling his pieces on the queenside--the drawback to Black's necessary eighth move.

13.f5 appears in Chess Informant 107 for the first time in three games played by Argentine GM Fernando Peralta. I looked at these games while playing. This research aspect is one of the pleasures of correspondence chess.


I remember preparing for 13...c4, but I lost the notes to this preparation when my hard drive crashed. Perhaps my plans included 14.Bc2 Nc5 15.Ng5! Ra7 16.Qf3 1–0 L'Ami,A (2362) -- Valenti,G (2204) Reykjavik 2013


At this point in the game, I was spending a lot of time going through a handful of games in the database. I concluded from this study that this move was more dangerous than the more common 14.Bg5, which had been Peralta's choice. 14.Bg5 leaves Black choices for how to meet White's attack.

Reference game: 14.Bg5 Nbd7 15.Qd2 b4 16.Ne2 c4 17.Bc2 Nc5 18.Ng3 Qc7 19.Rae1 Nfd7 20.e5 dxe5 21.d6 Qc6 22.Be7 b3 23.axb3 cxb3 24.Bb1 Bb7 25.Ne4 Rac8 26.f6 Bh8 27.Qh6 Ne6 28.Rc1 Qd5 29.Rcd1 Qc6 30.Rc1 Qd5 31.Rcd1 Qc6 32.Rf2 Qb6 33.Nfg5 Nef8 34.Nxf7 Bxe4 35.Qxf8+ 1–0 Peralta,F (2557) -- Almeida Quintana,O (2542) Barcelona 2009.

14...hxg6 15.e5!

Black to move

At this point we are following a single reference game from 1999. This move gives up a pawn to maintain the attack.

15...dxe5 16.Ng5 c4

16...Ra7 was played in my reference game 17.Qf3 c4 18.Bc2 b4 19.Qf2 Rc7 20.Nce4 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 f5 22.d6 Rf7 23.Bg5 Qd7 24.Be7 and here Black opted to exchange rook for bishop and knight, but still went on to lose (Narciso Dublan,M [2459] -- Kovacevic,S [2442], La Pobla de Lillet 1999).

17.Bc2 Ra7

White to move


In addition to harassing the rook as the reference game above at 19.Qf2, this move creates the possibility of locating the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal.


18...Rc7 is no good due to 19.Bb6.

19.Qf3 Bb7 20.Qh3

Black to move

At this point in the game, my opponent took a long vacation. When he finally moved again, he had exhausted his vacation time and was under twelve hours on the clock. Not having looked at the game in over a month, I had forgotten that I had a nice position with good compensation for the pawn. I was beginning to hope for a time-out victory.


White maintains an advantage after 20...Bxd5, but must continue to find strong moves, or the attack will dissipate. Then, White's loss of two pawns may become decisive.

I saw that my opponent had moved while I was preparing some BBQ chicken for Saturday dinner. I quickly saw that my knight was safe for at least another two moves. The exchange sacrifice appeared to promise a strong attack. After five minutes of looking at Black's choices, I played my move.

21.Rxf6! 1-0

Black resigned a few hours later.

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.


frankyyy27 wrote:


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?

LongIslandMark wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

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...¿

frankyyy27 wrote:

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. 

manfredmann wrote:
chessmicky wrote:

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.


Lmao chessfred..at last some common sense