Opening databases, endgame tablebases, game databases, and printed matter don’t generate moves. It’s the player’s task to synthesize the research.
Stockfish, Leela, and your neighborhood master can generate moves.
If we had a 32-piece tablebase, that distinction would break down. 
The rule (#3 on page 222) in Chapter 9 on Player Responsibilities in US Chess regulated correspondence games on the use of computers is quaint and unenforceable. International correspondence rules were once this quaint, but with the onset of powerful programs, they gave up trying to police the use of technology. They changed their rules to be more realistic. Players can still play “on their honor” if they wish, but they are likely to be outgunned.
How would the USCF catch someone who is alleged to be cheating under their correspondence rules standards? What methods would be used to determine the “cheating”? What evidence would be require to establish proofs? Would these be similar to what goes for pretending to catch “cheaters” in an online environment? Do proofs require a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard or is a fuzzier educated guess standard used? How many people have been caught cheating in USCF correspondence chess over the years or in online play?
I have had people who played correspondence chess ask me for evaluations of positions and moves. I do not recall anyone being punished or even caring that such practices went on. They did not consider it cheating since everyone else they knew in correspondence play were doing the same thing. For a while, they thought they could still outdo the silicon monsters with their own heads. Now they are just trying to find the “truth” in a lot of opening variations to extend understanding of the game.
I think it is funny that online play pretends that it can catch alleged “cheaters”. I don’t think they can do it technically, and no one has demonstrated that they can do so. They can try to intimidate people, but when they start to affect people’s money, a higher level of proof is required. Oh, how ethical online chess is, while they mislead the players about the accuracy of the dotcom ratings. Do they control sandbagging online? Do they even know what is going on and why players do it? A couple of friends who play a lot of online chess complain about that and other issues. My advice was to not to take it seriously and quit playing on certain sites, but they are addicted.
Looks like USCF has made a commitment to online play with cash prizes:
https://new.uschess.org/news/blitzing-covid-fundraiser-us-chess-may-30th/
I did not find any mention of how online cheating will be addressed with regard to ratings or the prize fund on either the USCF blog page or on the chess.com sign up page that was linked.
Edit: It is not yet clear whether this play in this tournament will affect one’s USCF online rating, so this post may have been premature.
[quote=“tmagchesspgh”]
The rule (#3 on page 222) in Chapter 9 on Player Responsibilities in US Chess regulated correspondence games on the use of computers is quaint and unenforceable. International correspondence rules were once this quaint, but with the onset of powerful programs, they gave up trying to police the use of technology. They changed their rules to be more realistic. Players can still play “on their honor” if they wish, but they are likely to be outgunned.
How would the USCF catch someone who is alleged to be cheating under their correspondence rules standards? What methods would be used to determine the “cheating”? What evidence would be require to establish proofs? Would these be similar to what goes for pretending to catch “cheaters” in an online environment? Do proofs require a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard or is a fuzzier educated guess standard used? How many people have been caught cheating in USCF correspondence chess over the years or in online play?
I have a premium chess base membership which gives me access to their database. That database not only gives you a computer evaluation after every move but in many lines continues to give computer evaluations beyond where any published game has ever been played.It is almost entirely impossible for the USCF to try and enforce no computer use in correspondence play when such databases exist. It is also the reason why very few of our country’s top correspondence players play in any USCF correspondence events (other than the Absolute which permits the use of computers). The rule is well intended but unfortunately the computer genie left the bag a long time ago. Why risk having a 1000 rated OTB player with a 2200 correspondence rating call you a cheater for using a computer?
In an episode of Futurama (Mars University), the robot Bender visits a chapter of his old Robot Fraternity of Epsilon Rho Rho. (Good old ERR!) In the lounge two robots sit across from a freshly set up chess board.
“Mate in one hundred and forty-three moves!”
“Oh, poo, you win again!!!”
( youtube.com/watch?time_cont … e=emb_logo )
Who’s “they”? I’m sure you meant ICCF, and that’s fine. They’re not the only game in town. And just as USCF rules aren’t FIDE rules (for good reason in my opinion,) neither do USCF rules have to be ICCF’s rules.
If you’re not willing to play on your honor then why bother with chess? You’ve made an elegant case for why humans shouldn’t play chess anymore at all.
If you extend your argument, unassisted play OTB is also quaint and unenforceable. How can the USCF catch someone who is cheating using OTB standards? And I’m only half-kidding. Yes, cheaters are caught. All cheaters? Dream on.
I know many players, correspondence and otherwise, who would disagree with you. And sure, I’ve had players seek my advice in environments where advice was prohibited (why the blind ask the blind to lead them I’m not sure). I’m not obligated to help them, and they’re free to try to keep cheating.
On the other hand, you only think that. I suspect you don’t know that.
Complaining about it per se doesn’t do a lot of good, true. And there is a level where it doesn’t really matter if someone is being assisted. After it is established, and sandbagging aside, the player’s rating will belong to that player whether assisted or not. Does it really matter to me if the other player rated 1600 is consulting Sargon II, or the 2800 player is using Stockfish? Even if the rules say otherwise, the Stockfish-assisted player is above my level and I won’t expect much from the game if I did play either way.
I might be biased, though. I am not “outgunned,” generally, because I play others in my rating band. That’s well below that of computer assistance. Then again, I generally don’t do correspondence tournaments. If I did it would likely be a quad inside a rating band. At any rate, I’ll keep my rating and play only at correspondence sites which have rules stating engine assistance and live advice isn’t allowed but other materials are. If none exist then I’ll open my own and the half dozen of us left will enjoy ourselves.
At any rate, while there is a parallel correspondence play still is not live online play, and doesn’t have to follow the same rules regarding assistance. The forensics of the two would be wildly different.
Even in ICCF play, consulting other human players is generally forbidden. (Sidebar: there is a carveout for team correspondence play; of course, there is a much more limited carveout between player and captain for team OTB play.)