08 Jan '05 20:34>
Originally posted by ChessMomMy philosophy is at first, even through correspondance chess, looking up in a database immediately after a move, to say play an opening correctly, was frowned upon. HOWEVER, as time went by, ppl realized there is no point to it.
I understand the rationale for using databases. I understand the bit about the player having to make the ultimate decision about what move to play.
But unfortunately, to me, the Starry-Eyed Idealist, it still looks like you're just using the "Hint" function. I can win against Chesster the Rat if I play the entire game taking the Hint function's adv ...[text shortened]... Pocket Fritz logged onto an online database through your cell phone?
Or are you?
You cannot prove the said player is/or is not cheating. Whether he looks up in a database to play a classical Caro-Kann, or just knows it himself, the opening is the same regardless, so it's impossible to prove someone cheats by looking at the moves alone unless you have some eye witness watching over the said players by the computer screen. Seeing that there is no logical way to enforce the "no opening database consultation" rule, and there's no dinstinction beteewn someone who say, knows a Caro-Kann or looks it up in a database, the rule was removed, and ppl used the argument that at least you get practice playing against the best openings, lesser of two evils, so to speak.
So it just comes to show that even in chess it's impossible to make things 100% fair or enforce 100% fairness. Personally I will never use databases during games, however I feel no guilt upon ppl who wish to use databases as a loophole everyone else has exploited and come to expect in correspondance chess. I just hope this liberal line of thinking doesn't extend too far, ie: engines 100% legal, but that's already too late for some sites.