Should opening books be allowed?

I've always believed it was cheating until I started to play against stronger players who knew openings like the back of their hand.  Realising I was probably going to lose before the game was started I began using the book. 

Prior to this I had no real interest in learning openings.  Actually its one of those scenarios where I'd like to but there are so many variations that I just couldn't face it.  I have too many other things to do and the whole thing was kind of redundant considering some of the people I play over the board.  Online it's a different matter.

I have discarded the idea that it's cheating because it gives me a chance to study openings as I'm actually playing Chess which is more enjoyable than reading about some dynamic opening and thinking 'I'll try that next time somebody lets me.'

Whether it's cheating or not only depends on what the players agreed upon before. I don't use books cause I dont want to play a live game against someone one day and lose because I dont have help anymore.

I use books after the game is over to check what went wrong and why. when I am actually reading chess literature while playing Correspondence chess I am trying to avoid any topic that is directly related to a running game.

It would be polite to announce to your opponent if you're actually using a book. If you see it as a study game it is fine to me... but if you use books and then cheer over a won game cause you think you actually did beat that person yourself you are a fool (but not a cheater).

It is ridiculous to ask those of us that adhere to the norms to make such announcements. This request is an effort to render tradition suspect.

You should assume that your opponent might be using a book unless he or she has specifically agreed to refrain.

I said it'd be polite to announce it, not implying that it would be impolite not to announce it. But seeing that it would probably end up badly, you're right. I was rather thinking of the occasional game with a friend than about the whole ladder here.

The rules are that people can use books, and if people cant deal with that they should ask for a second ladder that bans books. Otherwise they can't expect of anyone that he doesn't use a book.

It's all the same to use a book or not. If you know an opening well it doesn't matter if your opponent uses a book. That being said, it is not cheating to use books...all is fair in love and war they say.

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia (on Correspondence Chess):

"Certain forms of assistance, including books, chess databases and sometimes chess programs, are often allowed. Books and databases are almost universally acceptable, but organizations vary as to whether chess engine use is permitted. Hobby players new to the distinctive appeal of correspondence chess sometimes shun all assistance."

chess engines are not permitted in chess.com.

We have to follow the conventions - not create our own, and try to impose our thoughts and ideas on others.

I only know 3 or 4 openings.  So I see this as a chance to expand on that.  I find the opening sticks in the mind better because my CC games usually last a good while. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's foolish to cheer about winning if you used a book.  I draw the line after 10 moves max anyway. 

Actually I drew the line with regards to this topic about 8 weeks ago when I lost a game in 11 moves due to a lack of understanding in the opening.  A good knowledge of opening theory is the only thing I feel that I'm missing from my game.  I intend to fix this. 

If some people consider it cheating that's fine (I used to feel like that too).  For me its about learning.  Hopefully one day I'll be able to do it without the book. 

It's rather like announcing before the beginning of the game that you know the rules regarding castling and en passant, and that you intend to use them. These assertions that it would be polite or courteous to highlight certain rules before play begins pop up in these forums from time-to-time. I think it is better to put the onus for knowing the rules on the players.

I think my oponents would find it rather impolite if I announced before the game began that I had the intent of playing by the rules. It would seem to imply that they might expect otherwise.

If you are playing correspondence/turn-based chess, assume that your opponents are using databases. As a practical matter, however, for those of us with many games, database use is not always possible in every game.

I like that sentence!

This issue comes up a lot and the entire discussion depends on a frequent use of the word "should," as in "a chess game should be . . . "

Let's all agree that different people can legitimately find different ways of playing to be fun, interesting, or whatever. For example, I don't play blitz, but some people enjoy it a lot.

If you are serious about improving your game, it is a good idea after an OTB game is done to compare the opening play with established theory to see where you can improve next time. You will then be adding more theory to your repertoire by post game study. During CC games or turn-based games you can study the opening theory during the game. It seems to amount to the same method.

Correspondence chess is not realtime chess.  That's a fallacy right there.  It is not X's brain vs Y's.  The added dimension is research.  Some c players are well organized and well-endowed with literature and that adds to their playing strength.  I've known c players who prefer not to use databases or literature and wished their opponents wouldn't either.  In some cases their opponents agreed and they played the game (presumably) without help.  In that case, it is like realtime chess, only slower.  But normal correspondence chess involves research, always has and always will.

One of the reasons books and databases are allowed in this form of chess is simply because it would be impossible to stop/detect. Just look at the trouble in detecting/stopping engine use for example.

its the most practical way to learn and improve

That's not what you're saying. You are saying never study or learn again. I have been playing rated games constantly for a year. I fully expect to be playing rated games constantly for the rest of my life. By your demands I should never study or learn a thing about chess again. You are being completely unreasonable.

I think you're losing it, ichabod801. I read all her posts on this thread, and you would have to be on acid to think she's saying "never study or learn again".

Consider this:

At no time in the past eight years have I been without a turn-based game in the opening stages in which I was playing the French Defense. Consider also that if I have twenty games or less (as is most common), I can set up most or all of the positions in my ongoing games on the board in front of me in the cafe at lunch. Also consider that I am always reading as many as six chess books.

Those of you that are advocating a break with the long tradition of using books and databases in correspondence chess are telling me that over the past eight years I should not have been able to read any books on the French Defense.

Now, the ridiculous fallacy that brain against brain means no use of databases can only be put forth by someone that has not spent any energy using databases to improve turn-based and OTB play. I, however, have invested thousands of hours over the past fifteen years using books and databases during correspondence and turn-based play, and my OTB rating has risen over 400 points since 2000 as a consequence. Using databases well is hard mental work. It is the appeal of turn-based play.

I was happy to offer answers to why databases are used in turn-based play; others, too, have offered a variety of answers. Now this thread from last month has been revived by posters that have not taken the time to read the thread and offer fallacious arguments that presume the absence of the foregoing comments. If you want to argue, I'm all for it, but please start from a position of knowledge: read the thread.

You did not even read the previous post, let alone the entire thread.

There IS NO BETWEEN. I am always in a rated game that is in a position that I am studying.

The COT group can agree among themselves to not use databases in their games against one another, but the moment they attempt to impose their views on those of us that play traditional correspondence chess in the traditional way, they can expect a ferocious fight.

You have publically stated that I have been cheating the entire time that I have built the French Defense as a central component of my opening repertoire. It is, however, an accusation that has no sting because you make it in defiance of established rules.

I gotta agree with Ziryab on this one. It would be pretty stupid to not be allowed to study chess for a year. Database use is part of correspondence play. And I think that in many cases it makes the game more interesting, because players know that since their opponent has database access they pretty much are forced to come up with a novelty sooner or later, lest they wish to blindly follow the database until their opponent plays a novelty and creams them, or the game draws on to a boring end and nobody has any fun.

Inasmuch as there are 500 named openings in my ECO database (each of which contains multiple established lines), how is it even possible to blindly follow any of them?

When I spent more than twenty hours working up five moves from the starting position in sixteen games in a closed Spanish thematic, I found that each move that was in book required lots of work.