Then you should play elsewhere. This is a CORRESPONDENCE chess
site. It plays by the rules of CORRESPONDENCE chess.
CORRESPONDENCE chess is not OTB chess; it has much different time
limits, much different attitude towards book learning. It is SUPPOSED
to be more comtemplative, where one has days or weeks to think
about and research a line of play. It's part of the reason why some of
us are here.
Do not go calling people cheaters just because you want to play by a
different set of rules. Learn the rules of the house you are playing in
or shut up.
Michael
From Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary:
cheater: noun. one who cheats.
cheat. 1) verb. to practice fraud. 2) noun. a swindle or fraud.
"cheater" is a perfectly fine word. I'm sorry you can't handle that
American English and UK English have diverged ever so slightly. Most
of us also no longer use "thee" and "thou". Language usage does
evolve and diverge. Hmm, I wonder how latin evolved into italian,
spanish, french, and so forth? Since you seem so formal, perhaps
you'd be happiest if the forums were conducted in Latin? Or in your
case, would the ancient mother tongue be Pictish?
I don't know why you're flaming Dave. You asked a question and he
helpfully gave you the (correct) answer. Dave is well respected and
gives a lot of his time to teaching people for no return (except seeing
them improve).
I asked the same question a few weeks ago, and got answers from
many of the regulars and pillars of this site, and they were all the
same as Daves. The rules stand and are widely accepted.
Your argument is like complaining that people use their hands in
rugby, when you're not allowed to in football. Correspondance chess
has it's rules, and they may differ from face to face chess but they're
the rules, they're there for a reason, and they work.
Freak - who's never used a book 'coz he's too lazy
n.b. Dave, you're not on trial here. You don't need to defend yourself
I suspect i'm just going to end up restating what other people have
written but less clearly but this is my understanding...
books, analysis, databases of games, these are just tools to aid
memory. Sure GM level players just remember thousands of lines,
analyses, games they've played, watched, read previously in books. I
can't do this, so in correspondance chess i can for a while glimpse that
world by taking a little more time than i would otherwise and read
up...
...thats the theory, in practice i'm just so damn impatient that i only
usually look stuff up when someone plays a line i'm not familiar with.