How to spot a cheater

Jump to forum:
« Previous | 1 2 3 | Next » | Last Post
25th September 2009, 09:26pm
#1
by NM tonydal
United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 4268

Well okay, I don't really have any specific steps in mind...but there are moves that definitely have a "computer look" about them. Here's an example from one of my games (against a guy whose account was soon closed up).

I doubt that too many humans would be likely to find that first move.  (Anyway, if anyone else has had "computery" moves played against them, by all means post the positions here.)

26th September 2009, 12:22am
#2
by hicetnunc
Neuilly-sur-Seine France
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 3176

Well, I don't agree with you here : though not obvious, the threat Qe2-h5 is not that difficult to see, and 1...Ne6 2.Bxe6 Bxe6 3.Ng5 is easy to calculate.

26th September 2009, 07:23am
#3
by mike456784
new jersey United States
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 2314

well i think that everyone can play with whatever strategy makes them feel comfortable

26th September 2009, 07:25am
#4
by mike456784
new jersey United States
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 2314

they could just have a better chess skill than you

26th September 2009, 08:11am
#5
by Vasmarok
United States
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 28

I have to agree, a good tactical player would see this sacrifice. I did not Smile This is not an overly diffcult combination. His account was probably closed for other reasons.

26th September 2009, 08:23am
#6
by costelus
Romania
Member Since: Mar 2008
Member Points: 1740

When my opponent refused to take the bishop and force the exchange of one pair of rooks, I was pretty sure I'm playing against "artificial intelligence". As long as the d5 square is controlled by Black, he should force the exchanges of the minor pieces. I was white in this game.

As for computer moves: I tend to label in this way not super-smart tactical shots (which are not so unreasonable to see by a strong human player), but positional moves which make no sense and are contrary to the spirit of the position.

26th September 2009, 08:24am
#7
by amitprabhale
Mumbai India
Member Since: May 2009
Member Points: 252

U mean one must not play good combination. Ridiculous! U r a looser

26th September 2009, 09:18am
#8
by Colin2009
Trinidad/Tobago
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 679
amitprabhale wrote:

U mean one must not play good combination. Ridiculous! U r a looser


Agreed. Because some1 beats u bad doesnt mean they are a cheater. Call some1 a cheater 4 no good reason is a form of arrogance.

26th September 2009, 12:27pm
#9
by hicetnunc
Neuilly-sur-Seine France
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 3176

Sorry, I have to revise my assessment : I just forgot the simple 1.Nxh7 Be6 2.Bxe6 Nxe6!, so the sacrifice is really very difficult to calculate... Surprised

26th September 2009, 01:42pm
#10
by Vasmarok
United States
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 28
hicetnunc wrote:

Sorry, I have to revise my assessment : I just forgot the simple 1.Nxh7 Be6 2.Bxe6 Nxe6!, so the sacrifice is really very difficult to calculate...


What I see for 1 .... Be6 is 2. Bxe4. That threatens the knight on g6. If that knight moves, white knight on h7 is protected.

26th September 2009, 01:51pm
#11
by Nytik
Southampton United Kingdom
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 4533
Colin2009 wrote:
amitprabhale wrote:

U mean one must not play good combination. Ridiculous! U r a looser


Agreed. Because some1 beats u bad doesnt mean they are a cheater. Call some1 a cheater 4 no good reason is a form of arrogance.


He isn't calling them a cheater for no good reason, their account was closed for cheating! Cool

26th September 2009, 01:58pm
#12
by princejher
California United States
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1116

i can only tell if my opponent is a cheater after i submitt the game for computer analysis!

26th September 2009, 02:41pm
#13
by the_fat_lady
Hobart Australia
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 101

cheater's shouldn't bother, why waste the effort, life's too short and naturally one doesn't improve without effort.

26th September 2009, 03:01pm
#14
by navguru
Dallas United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 12

I don't have experience with chess engines, but I have found I sometimes disagree with the computer analysis towards the end of games. Plus it does not like sacrifices. Also some of the recommended lines look extremely dangerous.

I find it more useful for the transition from the opening to see where I messed up.

Is the computer analysis similar to what you see from a typical chess engine?

26th September 2009, 03:11pm
#15
by nqi
Southland New Zealand
Member Since: Jul 2008
Member Points: 450

Surely the joy in winning chess is the feeling you have outsmarted and outplayed your opponent, rather than feeling you have the better computer.

26th September 2009, 03:52pm
#16
by schlagle
Newark, CA United States
Member Since: Jul 2009
Member Points: 25

I'm not that great of a chess player but the knight sac stood right out. I would hate to be accused of cheating because I actually played good!

26th September 2009, 04:01pm
#17
by alwaysmated
International
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 487
nqi wrote:

Surely the joy in winning chess is the feeling you have outsmarted and outplayed your opponent, rather than feeling you have the better computer.


 ...all my life, i must say or sing "i did it my way"...knowing that it's your way climbing that "rate" stair or own thing (life) all  'd way, ... is almost heaven to me (.) ... life is too short to prove on to one's self 'd capabilities you can attain on your own,  doin' d' right thing ...

26th September 2009, 04:25pm
#18
by princejher
California United States
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1116
costelus wrote:

When my opponent refused to take the bishop and force the exchange of one pair of rooks, I was pretty sure I'm playing against "artificial intelligence".


"when an item is thus equally attacked and defended, the player attacking it should not take it as he will be the ultimate loser either in material or position after the exchanges are completed."-A.G. Ratnam maybe he followed this chess wisdom and played positional to maneuver his pieces to a more active square. may i know what did the computer analysis revealed to you about this game? to be honest, when i looked into your diagram, i will not trade pieces as black at this juncture to maintain the tension in the center and queen-side, while subtlely bring my bishop pair in the direction of white's king. this strategy is not hard to spot.

26th September 2009, 04:40pm
#19
by princejher
California United States
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 1116

about the first diagram. a book by murray chandler-50 deadly checkmate shows this kind of attacking pattern! missing the defensive f-pawn and the king is situated and trapped on the h8 square. when the attacking player had the bishop controlling that g8 escape square. a sacrifice on the h-file is screaming if the queen or rook can move immediately to the would be open h-file. it doesn't take a computer to make someone realized this kind of moves, that idea should trigger one's  thought to look  deeper into this variation if the knight sacrifice is possible or not. the first time i looked into your puzzle, i also thought of sacrificing the knight but fall short of coming to a solid continuation because there are pieces to help defend the position. so depending on time constraint, i may not play that move in the actual game because the mate attack is not for sure!

26th September 2009, 06:13pm
#20
by kco
Perth Australia
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 6919

sheez tonydal you open a can of worms here ! lol

« Previous | 1 2 3 | Next » | Last Post
This forum topic has been locked.