Is it moral to look up openings mid-game in Online Chess?

I would absolutely say that using any engine during a game is flat-out cheating. But what is the etiquette in terms of looking up an opening you don't recognise on wikipedia or the openings analysis tool on chess.com?

you can use any source in correspondence chess except having a direct aid. This includes both an engine and a second person who helps you.

Depends on what you mean by Online Chess.  In Erikspeak that translates to correspondence chess, is that what you mean?  The rules have always allowed research in correspondence.  You can use books, online resources, and most databases; everything but engines and tablebase.  OK you can't ask for advice either.  Oh and the database can't be connected to an active cloud (Fritz), that's considered engine use too.  Of course in live chess all this would be considered cheating.

Slightly different question.

How about if you play a game and get down to a certain type of, for example, rook and pawn endgame. Are you allowed to look up on the theory behind that type of rook pawn endgame that might then tell you exactly what you need to do, even though it may not be the exact same position?

I feel like if you don't know what to do when you reach a certain position you should wait til after the game before booking up personally.

Edit: Double post

Good point, I would say that is a comparable situation.

I don't think being involved in a correspondence game requires you to suspend your general chess studies.  I think it's just a convenient time to study specific topics if they present themselves in a correspondece game.  Your opponent has the same opportunity, and it requires you both to be careful and accurate.  That is what correspondence chess is for, and it allows for a better learning experience, I think.

chester6 is right. I don't think that there is much grey area here. You are of course allowed to look up openings and endgames during the game. Most people don't, but that shouldn't make any difference as to whether or not you do. The only strange exception to the otherwise clear rules is tablebases being off limits, so you just have to remember that one.

You are allowed to lookup endgame theory\ typical plans in coorespondence chess. In fact most endgames are very concrete, it might not be routine to apply these plans to specific endgame. Obtaining specifc move sequences from chess engines or tablebases, when applicable, are definitely not allowed. In fact chess com has made the rules hazy by defining the rules in terms of opening moves and opening books etc. The relevant rules were clearly made by somebody who doesn't understand chess very well because you can't distinguish between an opening move or endgame move it's just a move. If this sort of etiquette bothers you, you are better of sticking to OTB chess, were it is clear can only use own brain, and this rule is enforcable. 

The previous posters made good points about why correspondence chess evolved to allow research. If game is going on a long time, you can't unlearn what have found out in normal chess studying and learning. You can't enforce a rule about not being allowed to read a book and learning something, even if you wanted to.

Actually, that also depends on where you are playing Correspondence Chess.  Always read the rules of all sites:

Chess.com - Engines are banned

USCF - Engines are banned

ICCF - No rule against Engines and I'm 100% sure that people use them there.

As for other sources, I use them myself!  You have a game that starts 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5, there is nothing that says you can't pop open "Chess Developments:  The Najdorf Sicilian 6.Bg5".  In an Over the Board game (USCF, FIDE, etc), that would be cheating.

Yes - you are not restricted to opening books.  Any book is legal.

If you forgot how to execute Lucena's Position, or forgot about either Philidor's Draw, the Short Side Defense, or the Long Side Defense, and which pawns each line of defense can be used against (i.e. SSD is against a Bishop pawn, LSD is against a central pawn, Philidor's Draw is against any pawn, even a Rook Pawn, although there are simpler ways to draw against a Rook pawn).

So you get down to R+P vs R - Either Side - and yes, go get your endgame book out!  Fundamental Chess Endings here I come!

If you are playing a standard on line game it is against the rules to use anything except your brain.

correspondence any thing goes

No is cheat

There's plenty of gray area in post number 7.  The first 7 rows of text amongst the 12 rows in post 7 is the gray area! 

The question is not whether it is moral....but,rather,whether or not it is ethical.If the game parameters permit outside assistance during the game,it is ethical,if not,it is cheating.

One of us needs to tweek their internal dictionary, I don't know who. I believe that those two words are completely interchangable here. To me, your post appears to be completely nonsensical.

The question here is  one of ethics not morality.It is easiest to explore a topic if everyone is one the same page,so to speak.Moral is not the same as ethical...accuracy aids understanding.

You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain what you believe the difference to be. How is that post helpful to anybody?

Ethical and Moral are not interchangable.

Morals are principals or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.  I person who goes around bullying people lacks morals.

Ethics are the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a class of human actions or a particular ground or culture.  A Muslim in the United States is supposed to purchase a house that faces east because their rules state that your house should always face Mecca.  It would be ethically wrong for a Muslim to buy a house in Atlanta, Georgia that faces west.  There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with it.

Also, from the 2 definitions, what is morally wrong is basically morally wrong in all cases.  What is ethically wrong depends on the person.  Using the example above, a Christian living in Atlanta could care less whether his house faces North, South, East, or West, other than the fact that maybe if he or she is an outdoors type of person that sits in the back yard a lot, they might not want their back yard facing west (and hence front facing east - What a Muslim would be religously obligated to do) because of the beaming sun, but that has nothing to do with being unethical due to his religion.

So no, they are not completely interchagable!

I can see that you put effort into your post TF, so thank you. Please accept my apologies though, as I did know the definitions already. You have however helped me to confirm that there is indeed no difference in this case and that they are completely interchangable.

In your example, the Muslim is obliged to follow external rules (religion related). Here, that isn't the case. Everybody has to follow the exact same rules so what is ethical is also morally correct. Interchangable.