books

As we've discussed before, using books during a game  is allowed according to the official rules.  However, there are players who are uncomfortable using books because they don't think they should be allowed.   How do you feel about this?  the problem is that if two players are relatively equal but one uses a book and one does not, it MAY be a factor in determining who wins a game.  To a very good player this may not be a factor; I remember one player saying that he welcomed opponents who used books because he could easily throw the player off with a tricky move.    But to an inexperienced player, this is not the case.  What do you think?

Using books is part of the game in correspondence play. It always has been. If someone refuses to take advantage of that, that's their choice.

--Fromper 

I maintain this is not correspondence chess, a form, even a genre, of chess whose aim is very different than that of those who play here.  I also maintain that a true chess game should be between two minds soley.  You bring all your knowledge and experience, such as it is, to the board and face your opponent who does the same. Anything else, to me, makes it a sham. 

If you want a learning experience, analyze your game afterwards and use all the books, databases and chess engines you want. But during the game, learn through exerting your logical mind and and your creative spirit. 

i couldn't agree more! studying and analyzing before and after a game(games) is the best way to improve your game. where did i go wrong is my usual lament, and when i find out-it makes me a better player. a book or books or other instructional material can only get you so far. it is you-the player- who must search the board, analyze the position, and come up with the winning move. the chess game is fluid, ever-changing, multiple possibilities,and only a prepared mind can conquer the obstacles. just an opionion-what's yours?

 I disagree completely. When your time limit is measured in days, it's correspondence chess.

So here's a non-hypothetical question for you. I'm currently reading a book on a chess opening that I've started playing. In my games, I'm using that opening whenever I get the chance. If I start a game on this site that happens to be in that opening, are you saying that while I wait a day or two for my opponent's next move, I shouldn't continue reading my book on that opening? 

I'm trying to become a better player. Looking up openings to learn about them as they come up is one of the ways that I do that. For "real time" games on FICS or at the local chess club, I look up the openings after the game to see how I could have played better. But when I'm playing here, I'll look up the opening while I'm playing. That's just how correspondence chess works.

--Fromper 

"When your time limit is measured in days, it's correspondence chess."

No, that's just an extended time control. But, of course, everyone can interpret things as they wish. I would agree with you in that as long as everyone plays under the same agreed upon rules, it really doesn't matter, but I would strongly disagree that turned-based games are essentially correspondence games, and, since they aren't (in my opinion, of course), the rule that using books is allowed is ill-concieved.  Turned-based games should (again, in my opinion) be the same as OTB games.

"So here's a non-hypothetical question for you.."

My answer is simple, as it should be. No one knows what you're reading. No one knows if you're using a program or if your room-mate is a master. Only you know. And you know what's right and wrong. Act accordingly.

"That's just how correspondence chess works. .."

I could flippantly add, "Then play correspondence chess," but it's not so simple since there is a basic difference of opinion in the intrinsic nature of turned-based play.  Since the rules here allow using books, then use them.  As for myself, if I were to use anything other than my mind (for what that's worth), I would feel as if (and would be due to the fact that I felt that way) I were cheating.  Additionally, if I won using any outside assistance, I would feel little, if any, joy or elation.

So let me get this straight. You think I'm cheating, and your reason for thinking that is that you don't understand the concept of correspondence chess?

You keep using the phrase "turn based" as if it's meaningful to the conversation. A turn based game just means any game in which one player takes a turn at a time, while the other player(s) wait their turn. This can apply to everything from chess to checkers to Trivial Pursuit to javelin throwing, where each competitor throws their javelin one at a time instead of all at once. It even applies to blitz chess games where each player only has 1 second per move - those are still turn based because each player only makes a move on their own turn, rather than both moving at once. In recent years, this phrase is commonly used to refer to web browser based games, where you make a move, then wait for your opponent to come back and make a move, like chess on this site, but that doesn't mean that this isn't correspondence chess.

Correspondence chess is any form of chess where you aren't playing the game entirely in one session. Adjournments of games that were originally intended to be finished all at once are possible, but the intent of such games is generally to at least try and finish without the need to adjourn. And in most adjournment situations back when adjournments were common in master level tournaments and matches, analyzing during the adjournment was allowed, usually even with book consultation, although never consulting other people.

I don't cheat at chess. I never consult other players or run my games through a computer program while playing. But I do read books on chess to try and improve my game. And since I play on a site like this, where games almost always take several days to finish, that means that I will be reading up on how to be a better player in between moves of games that I'm playing. And sometimes, what I'm reading will apply directly to the games I'm playing. Sometimes, it won't.

Other times, I'll end up in an opening I'm not familiar with, and I'll make a point of looking up that specific opening line to learn how it normally goes. Trying to only play the exact moves given in a book in such situations would probably backfire, since my opponents are unlikely to play exactly the same way that "book" theory says a grandmaster would play. But I will use books to get an overall feel of what to expect from that opening. That's all you can use opening books for at beginner/intermediate levels, anyway, whether you're doing it between games or during a correspondence game.

As I said, that's just the nature of correspondence chess. If this site didn't allow reading chess books between moves, then I'd stop playing here, rather than disobeying the rules of the site or not reading the books. That's why I asked the question when I first started playing here.

--Fromper 

Accuse you of cheating??

No, not at all. In fact, a less cursory reading would suggest just the opposite. I accused you of following the rules. As far as I know, cheating would involve not following the rules.

Because you don't agree with my understanding of correspondence chess, doesn't negate my understanding, anymore that your application of a general concept of the term "turn-based" negates the specific use of the term in modern internet chess.

If you want to consult books, databases or whatever, it's perfectly fine and legal.

Enjoy your games.

"your reason for thinking that is that you don't understand the concept of correspondence chess?"

and one for the road...

"Correspondence chess is any form of chess where you aren't playing the game entirely in one session. "

...is patently wrong.

Correspondence chess is historically defined as a form of chess in which the moves are delivered through some method of... ummm....correspondence.

Such correspondence could be postal (and indeed, correspondece chess and postal chess are almost interchangeable terms), email, hand delivery, carrier pigeon, whatever.  If I were to meet you at your house once a day to make a move in your presence, it would not be correspondence chess.  If I were to email you a move every 2 minutes, it would be correspondence chess.  Time control has absolutely nothing to do with defining it.

However, correspondence chess has evolved into a fairly specific (though varied) form of chess. It's this evolution I am referring to.

"If you want to consult books, databases or whatever, it's perfectly fine and legal. "

 "just to clarify, you CAN consult books & databases. some of us just choose not to :)"

I apologize for being unclear.

In games with long time controls, I clarify the rules before playing to avoid any misunderstandings. For example, my current game began like this:

likesforests: This should be fun. I assume opening and endgame books are allowed, computer and outside analysis are prohibited?

Samuraipawn: Yep. Now, EN GARDE! ;)

Samuraipawn: BTW, my chess books have not arrived as of yet from New Zealand, which means that I have no source for opening theory. How about we play the opening blind and refer only to endgame books?

likesforests: Fair enough.