I don't come here to play Fritz and the rest of them. When I detect a computer player, I resign the game immediately.

I can tell almost all of the time when my opponent uses a computer to make his moves.  They use little time per move yet they can see 5 or 6 moves deep the only move that saves a desperatly-looking position that had been reached by grabbing material. 

When you play the computer players, their moves are mechanical, and lack artistry. If you have experience (I used to be a computer programmer involved with developing chess software0 you can almost always tell who uses a computer to make his moves. It is harder to detect those who use the computer as a blunder checker.

For the record, I use less than a minute per move on average here and I don't have chess-playing software on my computer. If you play me using a computer program, you will win. So do not waste my time and yours.

 

You seem a bit obsessed...

You think that posting one message on one topic constitutes obsession?

Surely not, but putting in your profile you are here to play against humans and not computers, posting one of your games along with the text "This is an interesting and original struggle which would have been spoilt if either player used a computer" combined with this forum topic does

Do you mind posting a few of those games where you claim to have played against the computer?

I joined this site to gain experience playing against other people (besides the fact that playing chess is fun in and of itself of course), and I know that my chess skill can only improve if I think for myself. Using an engine to decide my moves for me would only defeat the purpose, and I don't understand why anyone would want to do it. That said - of course the games of most people on chess.com "lack artistry". Alekhine and Capablanca were true chess artists. The games of people like "shrink" and "lanceuppercut_239" are little more than collections of misplayed openings, dubious moves, and outright tactical blunders. Let's be honest with ourselves here.

I agree with the first part of your post but certainly not with the negative interpretation of some of the non-capablanca or Alekhine games. Great Masters blundered, they misplayed openings and they played dubvious moves too. The difference between them and the average mortals is superior technique (particularly in the endgame), greater tactical ability and better positional judgement.

This said, I have seem great artistry (which means mostly creativity to me) from 1500 players including from players who eventually lost the game. You can tell the difference between an idea-based player and a mechanical player, even if he is weak in tactics, positional sense and technique. Creativity is a human characteristic whereas tactics and the rest of it is chess-specific.

After 160+ games here at chess.com, I can't say that any of my opponents were using a computer to make their moves. Everyone else must have much worse luck than I do. :-)

Feldmm1, look at his last couple losses, both played against the same person and resigned early. Let's leave them unnamed to respect the forum rules.

Shrink, I see no evidence of foul play. First, your opponent made many small mistakes in these games... in fact, you had the advantage in one of the games. Second, he's lost about a third of his games. Third, your attacks were unsound and it was clear those were do-or-die moves; while you may spend one minute per turn, this is correspondence chess and the rules allow your opponent to spend hours considering key moves and even to use an analysis board if they wish. Fourth, I've never played a cheater here.

There is a fairly simple way to decide, after the game, if you have played against a computer - you analyse the game using Fritz/Deep Junior/Crafty/Rybka/... and then compare the number of times your opponents moves agreed with the top move chosen by that program. You then just need to realise that an agreement in the region of 90% is much, much better than most international masters  can manage (in a game lasting at least 20-30 moves after the opening book line has ended) - so, if your opponent manages 90% agreement, then he is almost certainly non-human ... but when all is said and done, don't you get just as much useful practice playing against a non-human?

 

 

You're focussing on the wrong game(s) of mine.

same here, although it's obvious when people are using opening books etc, but that's allowed. 

 

[edit - agreeing with loomis, although i've played far fewer games.  hmm fast moving topic!] 

Loomis I was thinking the same thing?! Where are all these cheaters? I have played a few games too and although I have seen players start badly and finish better I've never been paranoid to the state of suspecting they were cheating. Can somone post an anonymous game and annotate the signs of a cheater? How can you spot that good moves are from a computer and not your opponent? 

shrink wrote:

I agree with the first part of your post but certainly not with the negative interpretation of some of the non-capablanca or Alekhine games. Great Masters blundered, they misplayed openings and they played dubvious moves too. The difference between them and the average mortals is superior technique (particularly in the endgame), greater tactical ability and better positional judgement.

This said, I have seem great artistry (which means mostly creativity to me) from 1500 players including from players who eventually lost the game. You can tell the difference between an idea-based player and a mechanical player, even if he is weak in tactics, positional sense and technique. Creativity is a human characteristic whereas tactics and the rest of it is chess-specific.

---

 Your original point was that people shouldn't use chess engines to pick their moves when they play on chess.com, and I agree. To me the word "artistry" creates an image of Michaelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Now, I can paint a decent picture if I really try but I'm no Michaelangelo. That's all I meant. I'm sorry if I offended you. It was a rather minor nitpick.

shrink, just use the REPORT ABUSE if you think you have a computer opponent. we can track them down :)

There should be a "report paranoia" button as well. ;-)

erik wrote: shrink, just use the REPORT ABUSE if you think you have a computer opponent. we can track them down :)

---

 You should let us all in on your secret so we can detect the cheaters on our own and refuse to play against them.

At my level computers aren't really a problem. However, when some of the top 100 players on this site have no FIDE (or similar OTB) rating and seem to be beating NMs and the like...I just assume they're all using fritz.

Can someone post a game where it is was highly likely that a computer was used and how you can see that?  That would be kind of interesting...

 I've played about 40 games here and I am fairly sure none of my opponents has used a computer, because the only games I lost were lost because of blunders from my side. So the amount of cheaters can't be that high. And anyway a full-time computer-user should have a rating around 2500, no?

Loomis - LOL