Can i use books to aid play ?

'chess books should be used as we use glasses, to assist the sight; although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight', Capablanca, lol 😀

maybe i was a bit strong but if i was playing you face to face you wouldnt suddenly pull out a book or open your laptop to tell you a move would you so why do you need to just because we are on a correspondance site as you keep saying

Originally posted by headsy
maybe i was a bit strong but if i was playing you face to face you wouldnt suddenly pull out a book or open your laptop to tell you a move would you so why do you need to just because we are on a correspondance site as you keep saying

what is it about the differences between correspondence style chess and over the board chess that you don't understand, the two are completely and utterly different, they never were and cannot be looked upon as synonymous, once this simple principle is established then we may embrace what the others are saying, books simply provide a point of reference, they are not a substitute for our own ideas as the wise Capablanca reminds us, nor can they be. Consider this, when someone consults a book of what use is it to him if he does not understand the dynamics of the position, has not a clear cut idea of the strategic and tactical possibilities, the position that he reached would be so abstract as to be alienable to him and he would be worse off than if he never consulted the thing in the first place, so relax my friend and embrace the principles of correspondence chess and if you don't feel that using books is ethical, then don't use them, but surely we should not condemn others for making use of the provision.😀

Originally posted by headsy
maybe i was a bit strong but if i was playing you face to face you wouldnt suddenly pull out a book or open your laptop to tell you a move would you so why do you need to just because we are on a correspondance site as you keep saying

I play OTB & use this site to help me with several aspects of my game - openings included.
Using databases & books here has definately improved my opening knowledge for my club games where I have quite a tight repertoire.

At some stage of your chess you may wish to broaden your horizons & improve your knowledge. Chess books are an obvious way of trying to achieve this.

You seem fixated with opening study, but the same could be applied to any aspect of the game.
Say you bought a tactics book & "discovered" the x-ray tactic for the first time, then applied it in a game & won. You would hardly expect a ban for having read up on this when your opponent had no knowledge of it & had never considered it!
When you think about the premise of your argument (knowledge gained through study & applied to games in progress) it's laughable really, isn't it?

This site isn't the be-all & end-all of my chess experience as it may pehaps be with you.
I prefer OTB to be honest, anyway. Unfortuantely the season has closed until September.

By the way, in my first OTB club season I won just under 50% of my total games. It seems some of the opening study I've put in here has done me some good.

Originally posted by headsy
maybe i was a bit strong but if i was playing you face to face you wouldnt suddenly pull out a book or open your laptop to tell you a move would you so why do you need to just because we are on a correspondance site as you keep saying

I should also add that probably 50% or more people on this site rated over 1600 use either a database and/or books.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if 100% of the top 500 players here all use resources in the vast majority of their games.

It may be that the prospect of someone using an openings book or a database disturbs you so much that you decide that correspondance chess isn't for you - so be it.
Unfortuantely you cannot ban people from playing chess theory or looking at previously played human games.

TOS 3.(b)
"...but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials."

If you don't like the rules, you know where the door is.

Originally posted by headsy
maybe i was a bit strong but if i was playing you face to face you wouldnt suddenly pull out a book or open your laptop to tell you a move would you so why do you need to just because we are on a correspondance site as you keep saying

OTB I am not allowed to refer to books and DBs, in correspondence I am.

Why do I do it? Because the main thrust of my chess is still OTB and it is OTB that I want to improve. How can I improve OTB? By quality play with "slow" time controls and by studying books. In correspondence I can combine them so I virtually always refer to my books even against weaker opposition unless I am 101% sure of my opening lines.

This has definately improved my OTB play where I have only lost 2 full length games in league and tournaments this past season to opponents with average ratings about 150 above mine (currently 1885). My only losses were to players graded 2050 and 2100. That is why I use books and I am afraid it is acceptable. If you don't like it don't play me but frankly if you have that attitude your rating is probably so far below mine and you would be out of book so quickly that it would not make any difference.

Originally posted by headsy
why do people think its okay to use books and databases you are not in the real world i have never used anything to aid my game during play as its cheating in my eyes as its not you using your ability but someone elses and those that have owned up should be banned

Funny that the message directly preceding this one gave reasons. When you ask why, and the questions has been answered, at least try to refute the reasons given before restating the question.

You were not harsh; rather, your statement is foolish.

You fail to recognize differences between OTB and CC/TBC, rendering your objections moot. The use of aids (which demand more work, not less) in CC/TBC have never been an argument for similar aids in OTB.

How can you suggest that book study does not require development and application of ability?

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
I should also add that probably 50% or more people on this site rated over 1600 use either a database and/or books.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if 100% of the top 500 players here all use resources in the vast majority of their games.

That is totally unreasonable, since that is an assertion that you could not possibly prove. i don't consider online chess to be an extension of correspondence chess, that is a flawed misconception.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
That is totally unreasonable, since that is an assertion that you could not possibly prove. i don't consider online chess to be an extension of correspondence chess, that is a flawed misconception.

I'm not clear on what you think is unreasonable. Do you think his numbers are unreasonable, or do you think that him giving an opinion without proof is unreasonable?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
That is totally unreasonable, since that is an assertion that you could not possibly prove. i don't consider online chess to be an extension of correspondence chess, that is a flawed misconception.

dude, look at the man's words, he said probably, yes its was based on an assumption, perhaps on experience, maybe even some knowledge, i dunno, however he did state that it was a probability, not an actual certifiable undiminished incontrovertible fact and what's more does it not sound reasonable as well? the problem is, that when we start to get personal our arguments become lost in a haze of personal feelings and our objectivity becomes obscured, you are of course personally entitled to think the way you do, but surely we must afford others the same. 😀

Originally posted by eldragonfly
That is totally unreasonable, since that is an assertion that you could not possibly prove. i don't consider online chess to be an extension of correspondence chess, that is a flawed misconception.

Ok, I can't prove the figures & it's just an assertion.
If these players do use databases and/or opening books then they are thoroughly entitled to.

Secondly, I think online chess with longish time controls is clearly the modern-day version of correspondance chess.
How is this a "flawed mis-conception"? You're not making much sense here.
I start a game, the other player has several days to make their response, the game can take several weeks (or months) to complete, the players can look at books for guidance...

I think here it is you who have the mis-conception.
Please tell me how playing here isn't a version of CC!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Ok, I can't prove the figures & it's just an assertion.
If these players do use databases and/or opening books then they are thoroughly entitled to.

Secondly, I think online chess with longish time controls is clearly the modern-day version of correspondance chess.
How is this a "flawed mis-conception"? You're not making much sense here.
I start ...[text shortened]... ho have the mis-conception.
Please tell me how playing here isn't a version of CC!

I can only assume that eldragonfly is using the literal definition of correspondence where one puts a stamp on a letter and mails it. (An outdated definition in this electronic age, imo.) I'll bet he works for the postal service. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude, look at the man's words, he said probably, yes its was based on an assumption, perhaps on experience, maybe even some knowledge, i dunno, however he did state that it was a probability, not an actual certifiable undiminished incontrovertible fact and what's more does it not sound reasonable as well? the problem is, that when we start to get per ...[text shortened]... se personally entitled to think the way you do, but surely we must afford others the same. 😀

Those are rather alarming statistics, these unnamed players shouldn't be pinned as using books and/or chess databases to help them, i would like to see some verifiable proof. Otherwise it is just plain ordinary nonsense in every sense of the word.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Ok, I can't prove the figures & it's just an assertion.

A false assertion, totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
I can only assume that eldragonfly is using the literal definition of correspondence where one puts a stamp on a letter and mails it. (An outdated definition in this electronic age, imo.) I'll bet he works for the postal service. 😉

Ah, as we approach the crux of this idea here, this difference of opinion, i still see no solid proof that the whole idea behind on-line chess gaming sites is to use books and databases. Yet this questionable statement is repeated often, and bandied about like some sort of Holy Grail or dimestore gauntlet, this idea seems rather absurd and dishonest to me.