I am horrified at the shoddy treatment and personal attacks to which ChessMom was subjected over the past several hours.
She has been asking tough questions, demonstrating growth in her understanding, and carefully engaging others' comments from the beginning of this thread. ChessMom's response to the original post on this thread expressed her view that soliciting input "from any source other than 'your own brain', you are cheating." This led to a discussion of the rules regarding correspondence play and over-the-board play, and to clarification of the differences between databases and engines. At this point, ChessMom identified herself as a "purist". She reiterated her view, "if you get any kind of help, to me, that invalidates your whole game."
ChessMom shifted her position from calling database use "cheating" to a more qualified statement that it appears "unfair": "What if the other guy doesn't have as comprehensive a database as you do? What if you just happen to be better at looking things up in a database and utilizing the information you find? Then the chess game becomes nothing more than a test of 'who's better at looking stuff up', or 'who has the better database'." She finds this practice "reprehensible".
Several posters hammered in on the point that databases are within the rules for correspondence chess. Then ChessMom pointed out that rules do not answer the issues of ethics, Making something legal does not make it moral. She put this observation in the context of a view shared by many that society's morals seem to be deteriorating. She renewed her argument taking issue with my own admission that databases "supplement" my chess knowledge:
Wow. This just jumped out and smacked me in the face--that's *exactly* the point I'm making. Using books and databases SUPPLEMENTS the player's chess skill. So what happens if the Other Guy doesn't happen to be as good at utilizing "supplements"? He loses, not because his "chess skill" is lacking, but because he doesn't know how to utilize supplements.
ChessMom deserves a reasoned and respectful reply to her concerns, not personal attacks. Given that databases are permitted by the rules of correspondence chess, is this rule ethically defensible, or is it merely a practical recognition of something that cannot be prevented?
I believe the practice is ethical or I would desist.
It is true that sometimes part of the battle can hinge on who has more access to databases. But, in theory, we all have access to the same ones. For volume of games, nothing beats chessbase online. For only high quality of games, there is New in Chess online. Everyone with a web connection has access to these. Size is not the only issue. Some players spend many hours developing specialized opening databases (called books) and refining a repertoire. These hours are an exercise of chess skill to build tools for further training, and for correspondence play. If I have a better database than my opponent, it is because I have used my chess skill to build it. Still, there are those who lack access to books and databases. Kon Grivainis became World Correspondence Chess Federation Champion largely without access to the databases his opponents were using. He employed specific strategies and opening systems that were designed to thwart his opponents' database help. Still, he was not entirely without outside materials, especially knowledge and records of some of the previous games of his opponents. But none of this answers the issue of ethics.
The issue of ethics must address the game of chess itself. As games go, chess is almost the exception in its reliance on skill alone. There are no dice, no cards, no hidden pieces. Chess would seem a good game for a purist.
Chess skill is not innate, nor can it be defined in terms of a single dimension. Chess requires calculation and intuition, memorization of patterns and application of principles. The help a player can derive from databases is limited by his or her skill, but using database records also requires development of additional skills unneeded in over-the-board play. Chess is played many ways: one on one with no supplements, consultation games (multiple players arriving at consensus, or voting), human + computer teams against other human + computer (advanced chess--see http://www.chessbase.com/events/events.asp?pid=133), human vs. machine, and correspondence, among others. The game does not remain static, but changes and grows. How well a player does in any given format reflects how good a player is at that format; chess skill is not an absolute.
I doubt I have even begun to address ChessMom's sense of ethics, but I will keep trying. The use of databases remains a gray issue for many players and observers of chess. If we feel justified because the rules say we can, or because our opponents are doing it, then ChessMom is correct to allege that it reflects the moral deterioration of our society. If we can accept ChessMom's comments for the honest and thoughtful concern they are, perhaps we can explain why it doesn't feel like a moral breach.
Now, a few minor points:
ChessMom wrote, And if you need to rely on a database to give you a mating pattern, or to remind you how to do a bishop sacrifice or a Gambit, then--my whole point is--you shouldn't be playing chess, because IMHO you're not really "playing chess".
In my experience, you need to know the mating pattern in order to locate it in a database. However, there are books, such as How to Beat Your Dad at Chess that list these patterns. Knowing when such aids might be useful requires chess skill.
ChessMom wrote, Fischer and Spassky had a level playing field, didn't they? And they both exercised their chess skills. Didn't they?
No, they did not. The table was tilted heavily against Fischer. He took on the Soviet chess empire almost alone, and prevailed. The training methods, match preparation, and support during adjounments (in those days, teams of GMs would work together analyzing a position while the player slept) for Spassky were so far in excess of anything Fischer could muster, that he had to be much better than Spassky. The chess world since has almost entirely eliminated adjournments.