My guess is Fuze cheats.
More side effects of cheating that I know for a fact has happened and is happening : I know a GM that used to play on ICC in the 5-min pool who quit playing there completely. I asked him why and he said because there are too many cheating there and too little done to stop it. He is a GM over 2600 fide and a former candidate in the 80s !! Imagine if a player of his ability quits due to cheating what it must do to those of much lesser ability. I know personally others of about my strength ( fide 2100-2300) who have given up on the battle against cheaters and in frustration have themselves started cheating ! Even GMs have been caught cheating and why would a GM cheat ? Well, my guess is because they also cannot beat the strong programs they face so they have said " screw it " and enlisted the aid of programs too because they get tired of being smashed by people who dont even have an otb rating in some cases.... its not hard to see the damage cheating does if you are a real chess player. Perhaps those who cannot see the damage/harm it does are not real chess players ?
You know, it seems to me more and more that you are more concerned about winning and points, than playing chess and improving.... Let's face it, there is no online chess without some sort of "aid", so accept this fact and move on or, MOVE ON....
OTB and you = a beautiful combo
wow...unreal, never even imagined people would use programs to better their live chess ability. i thought it was brain vs brain and the only experience i have ever played a computer was on against a playstation 2 game which completely anhilalated me. it is an amazing game chess one that brings out complexities within the human psyche that must be explored by peer on peer for enjoyment or vs the computer for some cold practice.
fuze must have somthing wrong with him if he doesn't understand how an honest player who has studied the game for many years without computer assitance gets upset from being CHEATED. cheating is A: against the rules B:unsportsmanlike C: morally wrong D: annoying & unnessary.....i could go on but i wont, im not a great player, but to imply that just becuase im not playing 4 $$ or any other big reward ,does not diminish my desire to win fairly and prefferably often... there is an old saying: "when you argue with a fool, no one knows who the fool is" so i guess i shant have anything more to say on this....unless fuze is going to stir shit up wich im starting to suspect was his plan all along.....
I understand why an honest player who has studied the game for many years gets upset when they are cheated. I am trying to show that on this site maybe they shouldn't be getting upset. Yes cheating is wrong haha, how many times must this be stated. Read the title of my thread please. There is a huge difference between playing for four dollars versus nothing. My desire to win would be substantially larger for the four dollars. I don't understand how you can say that your desire to win is the same.
I am tiered of people like you insulting me. I have done nothing wrong. I am trying to have an honest discussion here. And very few are even commenting on the point of this thread, the side-effects of cheating. Please don't say there is something wrong with me, I am a fool, or suggest that I am trying to cause havoc in the forums. What are you trying to cause with these comments?
Please people, I just want an honest discussion. Don't call me a cheater just because I am viewing cheating from another perspective. How can anyone try to think outside of the box if they are going to be burned at the stake for it.
Cheating on ICC is much different then at chess.com. First of all you pay a monthly subscription to play unless you are titled. Secondly ICC has more top players than any other place on the internet. The level of competition is vastly different from this site. ICC and chess.com are completely different. I see chess.com as more of a community site and a place to learn.
Now the 2600 hundred player being cheated. They are among the best in the world. I could not imagine what it must feel like to be cheated when you have worked and earned so much, more than probably any of us will achieve. The compition at ICC is fierce so I can understand that they would no longer take part. But how does this even relate to chess.com? And your question on the impact of lower rated players, it is less of an impact because they have less to lose. Similar to how wealthier people commit suicide more often then poor. I agree that cheating has negative side-effects. On this site are they as bad as on ICC?
What is a real chess player? Somone who agrees with you? That makes as much sense as saying you are not a real American if you don't like hamburgers and hot dogs.
Why ICC should be different? Cheaters are here and there, doing the same thing they know. About paying a fee? No problem, cheaters are always eager to pay a membership fee, in order to demonstrate everybody their amazing chess abilities. I played on ICC, I reported cheaters there too (the rate was about one per week). I think that the main difference is that on ICC it is much more easily for a cheater to get a (C) attached to his name then here. Here it appears that the staff is somewhat reluctant to ban premium members.
I simply don't understand why a lower rated player has less to lose when playing with a cheater. I think that, no matter who plays against a computer, has a lot to lose: a huge amount of time which is wasted. You have nothing to learn from an engine.
A real chess player for me is one that is really interested in becoming a stronger chess player and works hard toward that end/goal. A real chess player would NOT cheat because he knows this would not help him increase his chess understanding at all, even though it would likely increase his/her rating. There are many recreational players in chess, as in other games/sports. Such players usually dont work at the game, often dont even know all the rules, and play sporadically, at best. These are an example that I would NOT consider as "real" chess players. As for your smart aleck comment, a real chess player may or may not agree with me as this has nothing to do with my definition.
I tried to explain the difference.
"About paying a fee? No problem, cheaters are always eager to pay a membership fee, in order to demonstrate everybody their amazing chess abilities." I dont think that is true. I think most cheaters are short-lived. Maybe some are really dedicated and make it to the top ranks. These few dedicated cheaters seam to define all other cheaters, even thought Ibelieve they are rare. I think that most cheaters shortly realise the pointlessness of their actions.I dont know what you have to back up the claim that cheaters are eager to pay a fee. I cant think of anything that suggests so.
And so many people are very proficient and detecting cheaters. If so many people seam to spot cheaters all of the time then why is it that cheating seams to be a rampant thing . ICC cant seam to control all of this cheating that is going on, apparently. Why don't they higher these forum members so they can start putting down their foot.
There are a few good reasons I can think of why a lower rated player has less to lose. One is that a loss is just different at the two different levels. Garry Kasparov has almost as many draws as wins and very very few loses. 32% of my games are loses on this site in comparison. That should show one clear reason why a lose is more impactful on higher rated players. Another difference follows. Say a nobody defeats Michael Jordan in a one on one match. Now say that same nobody defeats you in a one on one match. I am sure you can clearly see that Michal Jordan has a lot more to lose even though you have both lost to the same person.
Now, I have already tried to show that a player can actually gain from being cheated. I have also tried to show that the cheater can also gain something. Because cheating is wrong people are refusing to consider this. Everyone knows that cheating is wrong, that cheating has harmful implications. Now can we move on. I want to discuss what are the harmful implications, what are the benifical implications.
A good point you make is that the player loses time. I disagree. As long as you dont know you are being cheated then it is equal to any other game. You can learn from it like any other game. Even knowing you have been cheated you can learn from the game like any other game. Some time is wasted because psychologically it is different. But when you let your anger get the best of you then you are truly wasting time. There are very few situations were you as a player can ,without reasonable doubt, know you are being cheated. And this adds more to the odds that your time wont be wasted unless you waste it yourself.
You cant learn from an engine? That begs the question, why do they even exist?
Fuse you are actually an idiot. I can't believe the crap you are coming out with lol. You lost the argument. Few, if any, agree with you. Please accecpt that.
I've found out so many cheaters. I even caught someone cheating who was my friend (some friend, cheats on his own friend?).
The person using the "computer assistance" learns nothing.
The person playing against the computer, learns very little.
Yes I said it. If chess was just "play the hardest player you can find and you'll get better" then everyone would constantly play chessmaster and not bother signing up for a website.
Why? Well think about it. When you play players your level, it takes time, sometimes the other person is thinking, and then you see a move you missed a few steps ago, or you see a new move that you wouldn't have if you had just played a chessmaster computer.
When you play players your level, they make an interesting move that looks amazing at first, but then you realize it's a blunder, and this doesn't happen with computers, and you actually learn WHY a move is good or bad. A computer does everything so perfectly, that most of the time you don't know what it's really doing/planning.
Cheating is wrong, for sure. Anyone who thinks they learn by cheating is an idiot. Anyone who thinks that computer assistance games should be allowed is naive. Anyone who thinks that players cheat to learn is wrong--it's completely psychological--they cheat because they have low self esteem and are weak minded.
Probably the two most common side effects of cheating are projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea.
Cheating does have no bad side-effects on rating, but as long as the cheater cheats constantly. Sporadical cheating does have bad side-effects.
If we wanted to play against computers, we'd never need to log on to chess.com. But I do agree that chess computers make great learning devices. The issue is not whether you should use a chess computer but when. A chess engine should be used for learning purposes only for post-game analysis. Using it during the game, whether instructional or not, gives you an unfair advantage if the other player hasn't agreed to use computers. This unfair advantage exists whether you cheat for one move or the entire game.
Isn't it obvious ?
Not to slate you, but I've said that already. Apparently, fuse disagrees. Glad that most people are like you and have some sense.
fuze22: "Agreed. But what of the effects of cheating? Is it as bad as the atmosphere that the forums suggest? Would you find a computer assited vs. computer assisted game helpful to your progression?"
Good point: First off, I probably wouldn't find a computer assisted vs. computer assisted game helpful to my progression. I just find these type of games somewhat entertaining. I, personally, like to use my mind and only that to play chess.
Secondly, I agree fully with your thesis on cheating. Would I care if someone else is cheating? The answer is no. And what if my rating drops? I like to say that a rating is simply a number. It does reflect ability, but not accurately. People who secretly use computers do only cheat themselves to the extent they don't learn.
This is a good forum topic. It is the learning experience that comes from playing chess that we should value, not the gain in rating points or the number of wins or losses we accumulate. Winning is satisfying when we work hard for it, and draws are satisfying when we work hard for them. Heck, even losses are satifying if we put in a lot of effort and feel that we've played a great game.
Very good post!!
But what do you have to say about the scenario I talked about in my first post. Two players using a computer against each other. I am not talking about just picking the move the computer makes. I am talking about something like finding the move you would make, seeing the options the computer gives. Exploring them and figuring out "why" compared to your move.
I agree that just playing a computer will not work. In my first post I said that a normal game is more valuable. I also tried to argue that higher rated players can really benefit from assisted vs assisted. This is were I belive you can realy learn. I never said players cheat to learn.
Calling me an idiot does not make you correct. The amount of people that agree or disagree has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.
i agree with rainbow 100% i dont gamble as i consider it morally wrong....fuze is insulting me and my intellegnce..by saying cheating can benifit someone..the whole topic is inflamatory and he knows it.....to me just mentioning cheating can put ideas into somebodys head.....gee im not doing to good with my chess..hmmm...wow u mean i can do better by cheating...never thought of that great idea....whats the next topic going to be...weather its ok to take poison...if a doctor says so? (cheating poisons chess)
I have said that cheating can have benefits. You are saying that is insulting you. However, that does not mean what I have said is invalid. Like I have said cheating is bad, but it is nothing compared to poison. Never be afraid of somone learning something, weather it is about computer assistence or not, they can make decisions for themselves.
No, I think i have pointed out some things that are not so obvious.
losing is not satisfying 4 me...i can't speak 4 anyone else....but every game i play i do so with the intent to win....i dont see what other point there would be...there are lots of ways to learn how to improve 1's game including computers.... books....mentors..etc...i personally don't play chess to learn about it..i play to win. stats and ratings are valued by me....its what makes it interesting....other wise i just feel like im pushin wood around for no reason.....
You can be very satisfied from a loss. If you play a very good game, if you try the best you can. Even losing the game you could still feel very satisfied. Thus, chess is not just about winning. You dont play to learn, but you play to win. To win you must learn. If someone cheats you and you lose you can still learn, you could even be satisfied from the game haha.
I just dont see how labeling people as real and not real chess players will help any of your arguments.
"...its not hard to see the damage cheating does if you are a real chess player. Perhaps those who cannot see the damage/harm it does are not real chess players ?"
I am defining group A. If you are in group A you will understand(agree) what I am saying. those in group B do not understand. Why not just say "its not hard to see the damage cheating does." You are effectively calling everyone who does not agree with you not a "real chess player". Do you see why if I dont agree with you, I dont easily see the damage of cheating, I am not a real chess player? I dont think seeing the effects of cheating is that easy, if it was then we would all be agreeing with each other. Does that make me not a real chess player? I was not trying to make a smart aleck remark, it was a serious question.
all your argument is about is high level players turning to cheating and leaving ICC because of their frustration against people they believe are cheating. A high level players experience does not compare to the vast amount of low level players. Its not hard to see this if you are a real chess player. Do you see how I have not actually said anything. I have just degraded anyone who does not agree with my statement.
I just dont think that a titled players experience on ICC is remotly close to the joe chess player on chess.com.
No fuse, you are an idiot because coutnless people have shown you WHY you are wrong, by PROVING you are wrong, but you still continue to debate. That is what makes you an idiot.
Fuze22, unless I badly miss my guess you are NOT a "real" chessplayer by the definition I gave. Please inform us of your "chess credentials" if you have any and do you consider yourself as a real and/or serious chessplayer ? To suggest that people should play "advanced chess" as a way to improve makes no sense, because the weaker players dont have enough chess understanding to get anything out of using a computer ( it cannot explain to them why their suggested move is good or bad only give a numerical evaluation) and the stronger players understand that the program is much stronger and even though they may have enough understanding to suggest a reasonable alternative and then watch the comp's numerical evaluation ( again with no explanation ) the comps top pick ( candidate move) is gonna be the better than their suggestion 99% of the time so they are simply likely to just go with that move. The result ? In both cases you are simply going to have a game between player A's computer vs player B's computer. In the end neither human is really playing chess, their computer is ! Perhaps you also believe in math students are allowed to use calculators during important exams they will learn something more about math ?
You could gain all the benfits from using your engine if you studied the game you played AFTER it was over. That way you could examine where you went wrong, find stronger moves, check out side line variations all without screwing over your opponent who logged on the play a human being.
The only problem is all that might take a bit of WORK, and you might just learn something in the process! Heaven forbid!