Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Do 900 rated players play like this usually?


  • 20 months ago · #41

    Irontiger

    e4_guy wrote:

    Winning move for black was ... Qc1+, not the promotion.

    This is way too god play for such rating level.

    This move was not played in the game.

    If you believe ...Qc1+ ? in the last position is the way to win, you might want to check your lines.

     

    EDIT : completely wrong. See e4_guy's next post. After 38...Qd1+ Black indeed wins.

  • 20 months ago · #42

    rdecredico

    jonnin wrote:
    rdecredico wrote:

    new engines running on multi-core processors handle this type of opening with aplomb ... there is no like or not like, there is only calculation

    After a point, yes.  But fire up your engine and play those moves as white against it.  It probably won't respond this way, it will pick a pawn-trade opening with lots of open space to manuver.  Mine altered black's opening by move 4, what does yours do?

    i dont waste time checking games against the engine  ... i could care less if people use an engine 

    i am only pointing out that they do, and frequently, and that one game here is hardly enough to make any type of judgement at all, regardless of match rate

  • 20 months ago · #43

    e4_guy

    Irontiger wrote:
    e4_guy wrote:

    Winning move for black was ... Qc1+, not the promotion.

    This is way too god play for such rating level.

    This move was not played in the game.

    If you believe ...Qc1+ ? in the last position is the way to win, you might want to check your lines.

    After last move (38. d7) black has mate in 8 moves, starting with 38. Qc1+, 39. Qd1 . . .

    If 39. Kh2, then Qf4+ etc.

  • 20 months ago · #44

    apiercy

    i just lost to a guy 877 (aparantly) playing:

    1.d4d6

    13.b3c6
    What!?!
  • 20 months ago · #45

    Scottrf

    chesslover1995 wrote:

    There are TONS of cheaters on this website. But not only that. Just as bad as the cheaters, there are also 'cheater enablers' (such as "wafflemaster"...what a ridiculous screenname) who defend the cheaters and, instead of admitting the problem of cheaters on this site, they will basically accuse you of being a sore loser. When I play chess games, I don't care if I win or lose. Losing is not the issue; it's the rampant cheating (people using chess engines) that I can't stand. Earlier today I started a post about this topic, bringing attention to the problem of cheaters on chess.com and, big surprise, chess.com deleted that post. Obviously they don't want any negative discussion about their site, even when that discussion is the truth.

    Why would someone who is cheating have a low enough rating to play you?

  • 20 months ago · #46

    Irontiger

    chesslover1995 wrote:

    There are TONS of cheaters on this website. But not only that. Just as bad as the cheaters, there are also 'cheater enablers' (such as "wafflemaster"...what a ridiculous screenname) who defend the cheaters and, instead of admitting the problem of cheaters on this site, they will basically accuse you of being a sore loser. When I play chess games, I don't care if I win or lose. Losing is not the issue; it's the rampant cheating (people using chess engines) that I can't stand. Earlier today I started a post about this topic, bringing attention to the problem of cheaters on chess.com and, big surprise, chess.com deleted that post. Obviously they don't want any negative discussion about their site, even when that discussion is the truth.

    You just admitted that you posted something against the terms of use, blamed the mods for deleting it ; accused many people of cheating, and got angry when someone did not buy your paranoia.

    Oh no sorry, I forgot, the whole world is plotting against you. Yeah, quit chess, there are too many cheaters there as soon as you go over 1000.

  • 20 months ago · #47

    astronomer999

    e4_guy wrote:

    Winning move for black was ... Qc1+, not the promotion.

    This is way too god play for such rating level.

    Jesus....you aren't a GM yourself. People win the lottery all the time.

    Sometimes a bad player plays a few good moves.

  • 20 months ago · #48

    Scottrf

    chesslover1995 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Why would someone who is cheating have a low enough rating to play you?

    @Scottrf: You do realize that anyone can play against any opponent, no matter what rating they have, right? So your question is totally irrelevant to what the original post was about (about cheaters and cheating). Was your question trying to change the subject, or ? I'll say it again below:

    Not true, because most people limit their seeks.

    But assuming it was, you haven't played any high rated players, so what explanation is there for these cheaters being rated in the 800s and 900s like you seem to play?

  • 20 months ago · #49

    Irontiger

    chesslover1995 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Why would someone who is cheating have a low enough rating to play you?

    @Scottrf: You do realize that anyone can play against any opponent, no matter what rating they have, right?

    No.

    You might want to check your facts first.

  • 20 months ago · #50

    astronomer999

    chesslover1995 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Why would someone who is cheating have a low enough rating to play you?

    @Scottrf: You do realize that anyone can play against any opponent, no matter what rating they have, right? So your question is totally irrelevant to what the original post was about (about cheaters and cheating). Was your question trying to change the subject, or ? I'll say it again below:

    There are TONS of cheaters on this website. But not only that. Just as bad as the cheaters, there are also 'cheater enablers' (such as "wafflemaster"...what a ridiculous screenname) who defend the cheaters and, instead of admitting the problem of cheaters on this site, they will basically accuse you of being a sore loser. When I play chess games, I don't care if I win or lose. Losing is not the issue; it's the rampant cheating (people using chess engines) that I can't stand. Earlier today I started a post about this topic, bringing attention to the problem of cheaters on chess.com and, big surprise, chess.com deleted that post. Obviously they don't want any negative discussion about their site, even when that discussion is the truth.

    I think you missed the point.

    The way I look at it, you cheat to beat players that you couldn't otherwise beat. Average on this site is a bit under 1300.

    If you rate about 1100, 75% of players will usually beat you. Why would they feel the need to cheat?

  • 20 months ago · #51

    Sunshiny

    @Chesslover1995 -I believe Scottrf's point is that at that level, unless the "cheater" can hardly play chess, cheating wouldn't be necessary.

  • 20 months ago · #52

    Irontiger

    chesslover1995 wrote:

    Irontiger, you sound like the one who's paranoid, and delusional, because you refuse to accept the reality and to admit that there actually IS a problem of cheaters on this website. Perhaps you are one of the 'cheater enablers'? Maybe that would explain why you're so quick to defend cheaters?

    No comment.

  • 20 months ago · #53

    You_Know_Poo

    I think there is a window of 150-200 rating points above and below you in which a player who is lower rated can beat you and you can beat a better rated player(not considering very obvious blunders). It mostly depends on opening in a fair game. If you have good position you have very good chances. 

    Most of the players in my rating range loose(including me) because they do  not pause to think why the opponent played that move. 

    So, this is definitely an anomaly where a rating gap of around 600 was bridged. But its your mistake too. I only took one look and I think in the endgame when u played R*c2, u could have pushed the e-pawn. that problem probably would have been harder to solve for him. 

  • 20 months ago · #54

    You_Know_Poo

    On the matter of cheating, I have never played anyone who cheats in a live game. I have played computers and they kill you in tactical details, both when you are attacking or defending. Always, I see moves played based on intuition.

     

    On the contrary, online games might be altogether different matter.

  • 20 months ago · #55

    Sunshiny

    @Chesslover1995 -There is a problem of cheating everywhere. Many of us have been on this site long enough to know that there is a group for discussions of cheaters and cheating, and that's why it's removed from the open forums.

    Edit: This isn't quite accurate. A group was allowed to be made for discussion of cheaters and cheating because it was not to be discussed in the open forums.

  • 20 months ago · #56

    TetsuoShima

    Scottrf wrote:
    Daniel90 wrote:

    @Scottrf Your probably right just mad at myself  for losing.

    Not saying he didn't play well (and I only scanned over it, looks quite mistake free for a 900), but the moves look pretty natural and not too deep. I think he just had a good game (maybe a proper analysis reveals different).

    totally agree with Scott, doesnt seem too special

  • 20 months ago · #57

    jac1yn

    No discussion of cheating in the public forums please. 

    http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

    If you'd like to report someone:

    http://support.chess.com/Tickets/Submit


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.