I'm really not sure what the guy means by "level playing field" - everybody has the same databases available.
We don't in fact. Some of us have spent hundreds of hours gathering obscure games, weeding out junk, honing specialized databases. Some have spent thousands purchasing the best annotated collections--training DVDs, Chess Informant, Mega Database, and so on.
In fact, the differences are like the development of skill itself. We're not all equal. Some people thrive on their own mediocrity and attempt to impose it on those who aim higher.
Well, fair enough then- but others could put that effort in if they wanted (minus the purchasing part). There's nothing stopping frankyyy from using the same raw data to play his games as you (apart from the fact he obviously isn't strong enough to comprehend the whole concept). Certainly, the world is not skewed against him.
Personally, I make do with quite readily available stuff, and mainly just use the database to have a casual look through games in a specific line, looking for the interesting different ideas that different players use. Statistics are only of a brief interest.
I have to thank the OP though - I was unaware that this brand of chess was not "real chess", where the object is, it seems, to go in completely blind to every game, push wood forward semi-randomly and see what the outcome turns out to be.
I'm really not sure what the guy means by "level playing field" - everybody has the same databases available.
We don't in fact. Some of us have spent hundreds of hours gathering obscure games, weeding out junk, honing specialized databases. Some have spent thousands purchasing the best annotated collections--training DVDs, Chess Informant, Mega Database, and so on.
In fact, the differences are like the development of skill itself. We're not all equal. Some people thrive on their own mediocrity and attempt to impose it on those who aim higher.