Answers.Body: <p>According to the official rules of the <a href="https://www.iccf.com/message?message=447">International Correspondence Chess Federation</a>, you are allowed and encouraged to. It is regarded as learning an opening. Of course, there are different rules for some sites, but most sites follow the ICCF rules.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-29T20:04:41.390Z
Answers.Text: At ICCF even engine use is fine.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-29T16:57:07.193Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-29T16:57:07.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Answers.Body: <p>In accordance with the reference to the ICCF, I think that it's also placed upon you and your correspondent to agree to such things: It's not something that should be kept secret from your opponent.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T07:44:38.773Z
Answers.Text: I don't agree at all. If something is allowed by the rules, the assumption is that everybody will make use of it. If you want to restrict yourself voluntarily and the game isn't competitive, you may ask your opponent if he wants to as well, but there's no reason for him to agree.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T13:29:19.590Z
Answers.Text: I'm not forcing anything with my statement, just saying that some open communication can be a welcome avenue for agreeing about terms. Think of them as "house rules" among gentlemen/women. It's more for further clarification of details and not a base set of rules. And this person asking obviously has some fine tuned questions of said established rules, so a quick banter back-and-forth can easily and quickly set one's mind at ease.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grey Dog
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T13:30:46.877Z
Answers.Text: I took "placed upon you" to mean it was something people should normally do. Nobody starts a normal competitive chess game with a debate about the choice of house rules, and that doesn't happen in correspondence either, in my experience.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-01T01:37:43.647Z
Answers.Text: Fair enough. In my correspondences, we usually have a very simple preamble where we set color, time limits on responses, and the like. In the past, my usual consensus is that you can consult theory (openings, etc) but not feed the board to a chess engine. I could do that on my own, so why would I need/want someone else to do that? Perhaps I misunderstand the use of a "chess database" as an engine.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grey Dog
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-29T17:47:54.103Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-29T17:47:54.103Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grey Dog
Answers.Body: <p>My teacher always said that using engines and suchlike didn't matter, as generally players in correspondence chess can analyse deeper than a computer can. That was a few years ago, so the state of technology might have changed now. Also, this probably only applies if you are above certain level of ability.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T07:46:11.973Z
Answers.Text: Everybody in serious correspondence chess relies heavily on computers, but on the other hand, people who *only* rely on computers don't get very far.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T17:25:39.823Z
Answers.Text: So if I relied solely on Stockfish with really good hardware while playing correspondence chess, I would not do well?
Answers.UserDisplayName: wired_in
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-30T20:15:09.553Z
Answers.Text: @wired_in It depends on how good you and your opponent are, how long you have between moves, and how much time you spend on computer analysis. If you have a grade of 1000, and spend 30 hours on computer analysis per move I'd imagine you would do quite well.
Answers.UserDisplayName: rlms
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-29T20:29:35.463Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-29T20:29:35.463Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: rlms
Body: <p>Someone told me that you can use a chess database for correspondence chess, but this seems a little like cheating. Does anyone has some information on this subject. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-29T20:04:20.153Z
Comments.Text: What kind of correspondence chess do you play?
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Tags: <learning><database><correspondence-chess>
Title: Is it legal to use a chess database in correspondence chess?
ThreadText: # Is it legal to use a chess database in correspondence chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-29)
  
  Someone told me that you can use a chess database for correspondence chess, but this seems a little like cheating. Does anyone has some information on this subject.
  
  **Tags:** learning, database, correspondence-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What kind of correspondence chess do you play?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-09-29. Score: 8
  
  According to the official rules of the [International Correspondence Chess Federation](https://www.iccf.com/message?message=447), you are allowed and encouraged to. It is regarded as learning an opening. Of course, there are different rules for some sites, but most sites follow the ICCF rules.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: At ICCF even engine use is fine.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-09-29. Score: 2
  
  In accordance with the reference to the ICCF, I think that it's also placed upon you and your correspondent to agree to such things: It's not something that should be kept secret from your opponent.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I don't agree at all. If something is allowed by the rules, the assumption is that everybody will make use of it. If you want to restrict yourself voluntarily and the game isn't competitive, you may ask your opponent if he wants to as well, but there's no reason for him to agree.  
  > **username_3**: I'm not forcing anything with my statement, just saying that some open communication can be a welcome avenue for agreeing about terms. Think of them as "house rules" among gentlemen/women. It's more for further clarification of details and not a base set of rules. And this person asking obviously has some fine tuned questions of said established rules, so a quick banter back-and-forth can easily and quickly set one's mind at ease.  
  > **username_1**: I took "placed upon you" to mean it was something people should normally do. Nobody starts a normal competitive chess game with a debate about the choice of house rules, and that doesn't happen in correspondence either, in my experience.  
  > **username_3**: Fair enough. In my correspondences, we usually have a very simple preamble where we set color, time limits on responses, and the like. In the past, my usual consensus is that you can consult theory (openings, etc) but not feed the board to a chess engine. I could do that on my own, so why would I need/want someone else to do that? Perhaps I misunderstand the use of a "chess database" as an engine.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-09-29. Score: 0
  
  My teacher always said that using engines and suchlike didn't matter, as generally players in correspondence chess can analyse deeper than a computer can. That was a few years ago, so the state of technology might have changed now. Also, this probably only applies if you are above certain level of ability.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Everybody in serious correspondence chess relies heavily on computers, but on the other hand, people who *only* rely on computers don't get very far.  
  > **username_5**: So if I relied solely on Stockfish with really good hardware while playing correspondence chess, I would not do well?  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 It depends on how good you and your opponent are, how long you have between moves, and how much time you spend on computer analysis. If you have a grade of 1000, and spend 30 hours on computer analysis per move I'd imagine you would do quite well.  
  
  ---
  
  