Originally posted by Varenka
Suppose, patzer1 is playing patzer2.
Patzer2 has a more up-to-date database and is better at using it. He's not very good at chess but he knows how to sort a database by date order. He can see that a recent game lost, despite the earlier 99 wins.
So the battle of the databases commences and patzer2 wins by replaying the refutation from the database. Unfortunately, the chess content was minimal.
This is just one example of the myriad mistakes that can be made by the blind database user.
That said, I think we have to be careful about defining the application of known chess knowledge as a lack of chess content. By that logic, everything we learn and apply in chess from another source- or even our own prior play- lacks chess content.
The advantage of a database is that it provides a large amount of raw information, and it reduces the need for mental recall for a game, since you can reference it in CC as opposed to recalling it from memory in OTB.
To a certain extent, I think we could make an argument that the CC way is more "pure" in that the winner may be the person who better interprets, understands, and applies the knowledge, rather than in OTB where the advantage is with the person with the better memory or recall.
To a certain extent, an OTB game is a battle of databases in the form of human memory, each with a unique "engine".
There's far more to it than that, of course, but I think it is an interesting idea and conversation!