Well to make it fair I use chess books for reference only. Not to copy whole games out of.
I hope this helps you
Zhane
Using Books & Databases for Playing Turn Based.
Sort:
*Sigh* Turn based chess here, is modified correspondence chess rules. Read those rules.
However, There is a group of players that feel as you do and play turn-based without consulting databases. You might enjoy playing in those games. But note that using databases etc. in turn based chess here is part of the game... before you decide it "takes out what real chess is about" you might try it. You might be surprised by how much you learn (and by how rapidly you run out of database help in many cases).
Correspondence chess (with rules like this) has been played for a long time. It doesn't take away from chess at all.
I use one book (which is an opening book on the gruenfeld) as I am trying to get more familiar with that opening; but I never use databases or other books.
Your comment of "This would explain to me why peoples ratings in turn based contrast greatly with live chess ratings." seems a bit unfair. Many people should have vastly different live and corrispondance chess ratings because the game is at different speeds.
LOB wrote:
Recently it has come to my attention that it seems not at all uncommon for a turn based player to use grand master game databases or books to help them during games. This would explain to me why peoples ratings in turn based contrast greatly with live chess ratings.
1) i do not see any problem in using them as references (that being said, i do not use them since i currently do not have any to use).
2) turn-based chess ratings should be higher than live chess ratings (since the former allows for much more time in making decisions on moves).
I use the chess.com openings database sometimes when opponents play unfamiliar defences, but as jg27pyth points out, the database often stops being of any use very quickly....
Mmm interesting ideas 
I'm only trying to see how others feel, yes I suppose I agree with the fact there is more time to make moves in turn based - therefore you should play better but not drastically better.
There are some reasons why turn based ratings can be very different to live chess ratings. First, live chess is usually played at blitz speeds, there seem to be very few games that could take two or more hours. Second, when playing live chess you cannot play with the position in the same way that you can with turn based chess. I can use the analysis board or set up the game on a real board and so on for turn based chess (no, that is NOT cheating!) and I can take my time. That means I can find good moves and also find what is wrong with many candidate moves that I think of. I cannot do that in live chess. The third reason is simple. Not everyone wants to play live chess. I tried it a few times when it was beta and decided that playing three minute games with teenage adrenalin junkies was not good for a fifty year old ego.
"turn-based chess ratings should be higher than live chess ratings (since the former allows for much more time in making decisions on moves)."
I have to disagree with this because more time allows both players extra time to think. Some people have a limit to how deep they can think now matter how much time they have - even if they are great at speed chess, while others have the ability to think farther and accurately for extended periods of time though not necessarily explosively fast thought.
I have a friend who is ADHD and he can kick my butt in 5 min games, but then the longer the game time the more I overcome him. And I believe the difference between 10min and 60 min is similar for some people.
I suspect that those who are good at the five minute stuff are not so good at the 20+ day stuff. In fact, those who walloped me in live chess have never (as far as I can tell) played me at turn based chess. Maybe they are sensible (as I am) and stick to what they are good at?
So in some cases you think it might just be some think better at quick chess and some at longer chess.. yes I can see that how that would work!
Personally, I think it is a bit unfair. If you played on a real board, you wouldn't be using a computer, would you? Still, I use the databases..
LOB wrote:
So in some cases you think it might just be some think better at quick chess and some at longer chess.. yes I can see that how that would work!
It has certainly been true for me. When I was much younger (about 15 years old) I was fairly good at the fast stuff. As I aged my preferred times got longer. Then I started playing correspondence chess when I was about 20. Now I am good at the correspondence chess but crap at anything where I have to visualise the board ten moves ahead. I like to move the pieces about and actually see what is going on. I think there may be more to this than just speed of play, but speed certainly has to be a factor.
I admit that I use the Game Explorer here at Chess.com, as well as Wikipedia's "Opening Theory in Chess," and a couple of other online opening databases that I have found for almost every game of correspondance chess that I play. That is the advantage of correspondance chess. And my OTB game has improved because of it.
As many have said, this help can run out as early as move 3. I think the farthest I was ever able to still consult Game Explorer here (which always lasts longer than all the rest of them out there - good job Chess.com) was move 15. Usually I'm on my own around move 6 or so.
The reason I like them so much is that a LOT of the time, they don't agree on what the next move should be. I'm usually looking at multiple lines and multiple numbers (both number of games and winning percentages) making my own decision as to which one I feel like going with. Wikipedia and ChessOps goes beyond listing the most popular moves and explains why a certain move is better or worse, and I find this information invaluable in determining my own game plan.
Sometimes, all the databases have the same conclusion, and I move confident that it is the best move for that position. Many times, however, I have found conflicting data and tried going one way one time, and another way another time, just to see how MY games progress afterwards. I'm still modifying my normal game plan, and can't always rememer what I decided on when I see that position OTB.
The other main drawback to these databases, is that they are all Master Games, and I don't play any Masters. When my opponent makes a move that none of the Masters make, I assume that it is a tactical error (otherwise some Master would have done it at some point, right?) but I don't know how to take full advantage of it, cuz the databases don't go there. That is why I really liked it back when Game Explorer here had "Master Games" and "All Chess.com games." I look forward to the time that they can get it working like that again.
If you really do not like using any outside sources during correspondance chess, I recommend getting in with the Circle of Trust group (go to online groups here). They are very exclusive, and you must be sponsored by a current member to be admitted, but once you are, you can rest assured that no one else will be using those sources either.
From time to time when I want to get into a different opening turn based chess is my tool. I try to stick to unrated welcome games with my book but I will pull it out on some rated games if I am trying something crazy. I don't feel as if it's unfair.
Reason being is when playing an opponent and letting him lead you into these different oppenings he is obviously using a database OR is already familiar, if he is already familiar then what happens when you get out of the book? The one using the book or database is lost, so there really isn't an edge there. I give 100% credit to correspondense here for my improvements. I learn NOTHING on fast games, but with my knowledge from turn based games and the help of my books I do improve greatly that I CAN play live games much better. What's the difference between people memorizing a book or using it? You have to memorize it somehow.
Oh an btw, an opponent of mine led me 15 moves into an openining the other day... It was my intention at start to use my book, he led me into a rare line of the guicco piano moller attack. I AM COMPLETELY LOST now. I followed a line that was supposed to be an advantage for me as white and all I see is a losing game for me now. I am 2 pawns down and I don't have many peices to help even the score.
I regularly refer to my books while playing correspondence chess, both on chess.com and in general play. I can see the "unfair" challenge this might place on an opponent, but it is similar to saying one team has an unfair advantage over another by having a playbook when both players have the opportunity to do this. This said, most of my books are only useful in recognizing patterns and more common lines for openings and then occassionally for knowing when I am beat or if a draw is inevitable. These are, generally speaking, most peoples strengths anywway (opening and endgame), middle game is where the true challenge, art and passion of the game lies.
I, however, truly enjoy sitting down with an opponent across board with a timer, from 1 minute each to an hour each, and going truly "head to head" without the encumbrance of researching my ideas or thinking, "How would Shabolov play this out?" My ratio of win/draw/loss is rather consistent in all chess arenas. Which if it has any say on whether you care about my comments is about 60/5/35. So, fair not great.
I am grateful for chess.com and the chance to learn form others as I go, improving my own skill and allowing me to pass more on to my students.
Spinatai wrote: Personally, I think it is a bit unfair [using Openings Database]. If you played on a real board, you wouldn't be using a computer, would you? Still, I use the databases..
'Unfair' is an inappropriate word to use as it implies that one side has access to facilities to which the other side is denied; this is not the case on chess.com. Allowing the use of Opening Databases certainly discriminates against those players who are unwilling to make the effort to use them - or who choose not to use them.
The use of Opening Databases is potentially misleading only in so far that it may not be in line with some people's expectations. For this reason, I wouldn't mind if there were tick boxes that could be used voluntarily to indicate the type of reference a player was using during that game: e.g. Opening Database/Game Explorer; reference books; Google searches; online reference; etc. (but I expect Eric & staff would mind - not least because it would require additional implementation) - and would be unenforceable.
JG27Pyth pointed out (with a *SIGH*) that the rules for game play on this site are very clear ( why using books and DataBases is not cheating ) - though not what a newcomer unfamiliar with correspondence chess might instinctively guess.
a related thread
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/poll---game-assistance
you will see from my postings there that I do indeed use books and online databases....it's allowed by the rules and is an integral part of correspondence chess.
A few thoughts quickly. I only had time to skim the earlier replies.
1. Yes, I use books and master games. I use them because for me they're part of the learning process, and allowed in turn based.
2. If they were against the rules, I absolutely would not use them. Cheating would belittle my personal sense of accomplishment. I think most, not all, play by the rules.
3. As others have pointed out, and goes for me too, a big part of the diff in correspondence vs live is the time controls. And also the ability to use an analysis board.
4. I think the concept of playing OTB without external help is not a bad option. There used to be a group here that agrees to do that. Probably still is.
Cheers.
Recently it has come to my attention that it seems not at all uncommon for a turn based player to use grand master game databases or books to help them during games.
This would explain some cases to me why peoples ratings in turn based contrast greatly with live chess ratings.
I for one never look for help but only play what I think is best. It is slightly annoying that I may not be playing my opponent as they really are.
Do you use this extra help when playing turn based?
Do you find it fair?
I know if it was against the rules people would do it anyway but still, it really takes out of what real chess is about - whats in you head and nothing else!