Should opening books be allowed?

I mean game databases. Like chess.com's opening explorer.

Babs: I respect your opinion, but you cannot impose it upon others and change the rules of the game. If you think it's better to play unassisted, then only play against people that are in the Circle of Trust or others who you know don't use databases.

It does not resemble cheating in any way, shape, or form. But, far more imnportant, and the reason I am accusing you of not reading the thread: it is impossible for me to comply with your expectations even if I wanted to, unless I stopped studying my books.

Thankfully, there is no rationale for abandoning the single best methodology that I have found for a middle-aged man to significantly improve his OTB performance. I am on the cusp of cracking into the top 5% of US rated players because I have been studying books and grandmaster games while playing rated team matches on this site and more than a dozen others since 2003. The consistent work playing and learning the same openings--the French Defense mostly, but also the Gruenfeld, the KID, the Meran, the Catalan, and others--has been the critical factor helping develop my brain into a fine instrument. Moreover, I have never had to work harder on a game than when I was using databases during play.

I believe opposition to database use in rooted in laziness and has not a whit to do with some pure ethical standard. I know through the sweating of blood how much labor is called forth when a player uses databases effectively. That's why I use them in a mere fraction of my games--too much effort to do it all the time. It is far easier to work from memory.

I can read fine. You just cannot or refuse to understand the consequences of what you are insisting on. Either that or you can't write.

The last time I was without a rated game (correspondence or turn-based) in progress was 1995. My OTB rating was 1250; now it is 1857. I cannot exclude from my mind the position in an ongoing game while reading a chess book.

Not only is your notion of "open" and "closed" and "during" naive, it has already been addressed in multiple posts in this thread. I am never not during a rated game.

So if nobody is trying to change anybody or anything, nobody is accusing anybody of anything, and this is really just a matter of opinion, then what exactly is the point of this argument?

Chess_kebabs, I meant Correspondence chess is not realtime chess in the sense that your opponents are not across the board from you, you don't see their moves immediately; you have to wait days or weeks.  And during that time you are given the opportunity to check books or databases.  I didn't mean to disparage c chess.  I simply meant that it is different and it's hopeless to compare one to the other.  An apples and oranges thing.

I believe opposition to database use in rooted in laziness and has not a whit to do with some pure ethical standard. I know through the sweating of blood how much labor is called forth when a player uses databases effectively. That's why I use them in a mere fraction of my games--too much effort to do it all the time. It is far easier to work from memory.

Amen! and Ditto!  The whole post that quote is pulled from is right on the money IMO. Thanks Ziryab you've summed it all up beautifully.

Ultimately CC chess is for studying chess! It's laboratory chess... and book and databases are an invaluable part of that. Chess.com does not allow engines which is a great rule for people who want to improve their play. (Less great actually, if you are a gung-ho CC purist who insists CC is about the search for the absolute best possible game using all available resources -- and by the way... I believe using engines to their effective maximum requires quite as much blood and sweat as using databases effectively -- I'm glad engine CC is being played, as I'm eager to use the results... but I'm glad I don't have to play it, it seems it must be tedious!).

the good news chess_kebabs - from experience on other sites I find players under 1450 copying from databases is very counter-productive.I dont think it makes that much of a difference at that level, plus if youre not booked up yourself then you shouldnt be in "book" that long so theyre not going to find as much

Stating contrary opinions is a quarrel, not an argument. Providing evidence and reason to explain and defend your views is arguing. In this exchange of differences only one side is arguing.

lol!! Hilarious pic!

There is a group for that. Go ahead and join, but don't accuse the rest of us of cheating as Babs has done.

Turn-based chess with databases calls for skills in reading books and utilizing opening theory that differs from but contributes towards the development of OTB skill. As someone that has used turn-based chess to make tremendous strides in real strength, I will defend all that is good and right and useful in turn-based chess against all detractors, especially those that want an easier, more limited game.

If OTB is your desire, play it. I do. Often.

You modified your accusation to say "like," but you started singing a different tune:

See page two of this thread:

A few years ago I played on a site like this against a friend from my chess club.  Of course I knew it was ok to use reference materials, but he didn't know and didn't care.  He often left book before move 10 but never played weak moves -- if I tried to follow theory I would get positions I didn't understand and end up loosing.  When I started leaving book for positions I was comfortable in instead of trying to follow theory my results improved immediatly.

The point is the "best" opening moves in no way guarantee a good game, in fact if you don't understand what you're playing they guarantee a bad game. Using an opening reference is a great way to learn as you go.  OTB is the realm of no outside resources -- as other posts have pointed out correspondence chess is study chess.  In fact, people actually set up the positions and move the pieces around too.

Ratings are to help players find others of similar strength and mark your improvement over the years -- ratings are not some deadly serious competition as you seem to think they are.

There are many significant differences between playing a game of OTB chess - with or without clocks - (or a game of Live Chess on this site) - and playing a game of correspondence chess (or Turn-based Chess on this site).

A primary difference is the amount of time available to consider your next move. In OTB chess, it is typically minutes. In CC, it is typically days.

It is a common misconception that if you pasted together all of the slices of time spent playing a CC game, you would end up with an OTB game. You wouldn't.

Leaving aside for a moment the use of tools (Analysis Boards, Books, Opening Databases, Algebraic notation written on the board, Last Move indicator, Press Submit to Move, writing notes, exploring alternative moves using the mouse, Googling for information) - an OTB game is in real time and nearly always in a single session whereas a CC game is not.

We all tend to think about game positions when we're away from the board - some people a lot more than others. It is in the nature of CC to mull over a tough position, play some other games, mull over the tough position some more, do some non-chess activities and then look at the board a few more times. Who is to say that those other games we're playing at the same time haven't assisted us in finding a better move?

I'm all in favour of unassisted chess - but let's be honest about it. Let's get rid of ALL forms of assistance.

I suggest the following guidelines (for starters):

1. When you display a game, you MUST make a move on that game.

2. You must NOT be playing TWO (or more) games simultaneously - UNLESS they are completely different positions.

3. If your mouse pointer touches a piece, you MUST move that piece - if you can (i.e. standard Touch Move rules).

4. When away from the game, you must NOT engage in any activity that could provide artifical assistance to the game, including - but not limited to:

a) wearing a checked shirt

b) moving salt and pepper cruets on a chequered tablecloth

c) talking about chess

d) using any facilities on a chess site (including reading or posting in forums)

e) looking at any artifact that is in any way suggestive of a chess piece

f) thinking about chess

g) dreaming about chess_kebabs

With an approach like this, we can finally begin the long journey back to a purer form of chess.

Until you decide to follow a database game that has a few errors along the way... which is all of them.

It's a lot of hard work, using a database well. Much of the time the end result of a game had nothing to do with the opening moves, so statistics are very misleading.

Let us say you have much the same position against two opponents - one playing as white and the other as black. (This occurs all the time in themed tournaments). Suppose, your higher rated opponent makes a brilliant counter against you. What is to stop you copying that move in your other game?

In fact, what's to stop anyone else who's looking at your ongoing game to copy the move? I think that happens regularly in thematic tournaments too.

I never do that. It would be like c....ing.