Active club to practice classical slow time control 90m+30s/45m+45s/60m+30s in Swiss tourney

I totally agree with SHF, on all points, especially including about the great job Chien does. It is only because of his diligence and effort that we have access to this wonderful resource for playing "slow" time controls from wherever you happen to be, at a convenient time to do so.

I'd also like to put in a plug for helping to support the club for those who can afford to do so. I decided some time ago that, if I wanted to do what I could to help insure this wonderful club continues, it was in my own self-interest to at least contribute monthly a twelfth (approximately) of what I annually pay in dues to my local chess club, which happens to be the Marshall here in NYC. After all, I play virtually each week in this on-line club and I've not actually set foot in the Marshall for a couple of years now. But of course we all have different circumstances and I assume that some players cannot easily afford to do so. I also assume that some can, and I urge them to consider whether paying voluntary dues of whatever you can safely afford makes sense for you.

Regarding the issue of cheating, I think that, with another episode just this past weekend, I've now had four occasions in which I've lost to a lower rated player and was afterwards informed by chess.com that they had determined my opponent violated Fair Play protocols and they were therefore returning the rating points I lost.

None of those actions by chess.com were prompted by any complaint or accusation on my part. Although the opponent played a flawless or near flawless game on each occasion, we all have games where we play better and others where we play worse. I had no basis to assume that the opponent had used an engine, as opposed to just playing well, And I would never want to accuse someone of cheating, perhaps falsely, just because they played really well.

I do not know if on the four occasions in issue, a) someone else complained, which prompted an investigation into the opponent's other games (including mine), or, b) chess.com has software that automatically picks up cheating even in the absence of any accusation. Either way, I suspect (but do not know) that the conclusion that the individual chested was not based on analysis of a single game but instead on analysis of a series of games. Either way, you should know that chess.com does investigate cheating and does take action when it concludes cheating has occurred. Obviously, I have no idea of how often cheating goes undetected and uncorrected but I assume that occurs as well

My feelings about losing to an engine have actually changed over the course of time. On the first occasion i was told my opponent had used an engine I was super-pissed. And also upset that there is, of course, no way to prevent being cheated when you play on-line. But I've since moved on to a different mindset.

I still find it a bit mystifying why anyone would cheat in a tournament where there's no prize money. I mean, none of us are forced to play chess. We play because we enjoy playing, and many of us practice or study (some more than others) because we'd like to get better. But where's the enjoyment of playing and winning because you used an engine? How does anyone get satisfaction from that? How can you ever feel any sense of accomplishment from winning when it was an engine, not you, that played a great game? Those questions still puzzle me. Maybe some of the people who use engines also try to fool themselves. Maybe they cheated just once, on a single move, and it then became habit. Like a drug. I don't know.

But I no longer get pissed off and I no longer get upset. At the end of the day, players who cheat really get nothing, no reward for doing so. On the contrary, I'm sure that there must be at least some loss of self-respect. And what have I really lost? Yes, some rating points. Yet, even assuming that I may have been cheated on occasions where the cheating went undetected and the lost points were never returned, it's not going to matter a month or two down the line.

So I now look at it this way. Even if the opponent was actually an engine with a 2700 rating rather than a person who was rated 1500, 1900, or whatever, I can also enjoy the challenge of playing a 2700 rated engine. And when my opponent plays flawlessly or near flawlessly -- perhaps because he or she used an engine, and perhaps because my opponent just played well -- I can still derive a sense of achievement from having played well, irrespective if my opponent played better and won. So why get upset or angry? Especially when there's nothing you can do to prevent the opponent from using an engine, and nothing to be gained from getting upset or angry.

Sorry about the long message. You see, it's the start of my work day and I really have no particular urge to start work.

Brian

Dear @bshoot (Brian)

I fully agree with your point of not getting too upset.

My perspective on that is as follow:

I think it's almost 15 years at least that I am not (and never) interested anymore to play practice game vs computer (let say vs Fritz software in my computer), since the computer level is already so high, that is not fun anymore to play and try to beat them at their standard high level.

If I lower their level, then their 'intended' blunder seem artificial to me.

Note: that even the very best player in the world these days are not interested to play & try to beat the best engine today (it's already different era that we know in the past where Kasparov vs Computer match still the attractive challenge both to player himself and to audience who eagerly want to watch it, because the computer is still within the beat-able range). These days even if that match happen, they need to set the handicap (eg. The Knight odds or time control odds, that look weird for my taste)

Then what I did with that software in my computer for these recent years is:

If I cannot beat them, then why not join or hire them instead? To be my 24/7 personal assistant eg. helping analyze my finished game etc. or help me exploring / testing new ideas in opening.

With that positive mindset, if in any particular bad days (I think it can happen once for a while that I was beaten by human who later is found out doing cheat) then my perspective is:

I simply don't care and will not waste my energy for being sore or upset. I just assume that on that day I practiced vs Fritz software that I never did it anymore for more than 15 years, and I have tried my best. I will surely learn something from any game that I lose, even more lesson learnt is from the very best opponent, no matter how painful it is.

Addendum: As I stated in my previous post, some people join this club as practicing place for their incoming regular OTB, but there are some people who can have only chance to play this classical time control by online. For whatever situation you are, then as long as you think that you will get much more practice benefit from this online chess tourney in the long term than the disadvantage (that is beyond our control) then it is a golden opportunity, otherwise you will play classical in OTB tournaments only.

Thanks again @bshoot @SHF @Noemis05 @Magyar1949 for your previous reply & support on this matter.

As you know the motto of our club is

Top full respect to Oscar (@chavezo)
for his high sportsmanship act in his game vs @Slugman92 today.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/144072018731 
move 14: W (slugman92) slip the mouse when W intend to swap Q.

While the game is not set into Take-Back on, and Oscar could capitalize on this error, but instead Oscar allowing to play few couple of moves in order to reset to the position before mouse slip.

there may be cheaters, but there are also honorable people

Thanks everyone who has written to me. It is nice to win games, and I happily accept the outcome of my opponents' blunders (as they certainly celebrate mine!), but this is different; a mouse slip shouldn't become a blunder. I think that anyone of us would have done the same thing. I'm happy it wasn't an irreparable mistake and that @Slugman92 figured out a way to reset the position.

Hi everyoner, just wanted to give my support to @fhunfi, who is running a great league here. Keep it up!

Yes, I agree with Magyar1949. Why would anyone want to cheat? What sense of self-esteem could he have? As mentioned, How could he ever hope to improve at chess?

I have to make a side note from my own experience when I played slow chess on chess.com about ten years ago when I was younger. I lost to a person who was playing amazingly, like a computer. I therefore concluded he was cheating. I was really bummed out about it and I lost my joy in chess for a while.

It wasn't until several months later that I found out that his rating on tactics was amazingly high. In other words, he really was that good, and his tactics showed it. So, just because someone really plays well doesn't mean that he or she is cheating.

I'm curious, how do you tell the difference between a blunder and a mouse slip by your opponent? Would you evaluate the situation differently for different time controls?

In the case where the queen was dropped and hung one square short of a queen trade, I can see why the opponent understood that wasn't the intended move. On the other hand sometimes it can be hard, especially for players below a certain skill level, to see which squares are attacked by a bishop or a knight.

yea i guess it's a judgment call. If you have an obvious square on the direction that the piece was travelling to THAT'S ALSO CLOSE TO WHERE THEY DROPPED where you can say, "Yea, he wanted to go there instead," then you can call it a mouse slip

I guess I am 'old school' but a so called 'mouse slip' is just like the 'touch rule' and should be applied the same way as the 'touch rule'. My advise to a mouse slip, be more careful.

I understand the touch rule/mouse slip comparison, and in general I agree. However, I think one might also look at other factors. I was recently in a game getting into its later stages, and my position was losing. I had some chances and a small time advantage, but I think my opponent was very likely to win. Until he mouse slipped and blundered his queen. In the interests of sportsmanship and the spirit of the competition I offered him a draw. If his mouseslip had meant that he simply lost a pawn, or maybe couldn't make a good positional move, then I might have played on, but losing his queen seemed pretty harsh, especially as he was winning. We agreed to a draw, and then played another game. I think there are more important things than simply gaining elo points, no? But as I say, a lot depends on the context of the game.