Cheaters Beware - You Will Be Caught
Sort:
I look like a Stephen Hawking made from Lego? Is it because bats have poor eyesight, using sonar instead i hear
Oct 15, 2007
0
#163
" Is it because bats have poor eyesight, using sonar instead i hear"
No, it's because bats have poor eyesight, using sonar instead, they hear.
Three cheers for those wonderful bat ears, astounding evolution over many years
hey guys, this is a very interesting topic to talk about. i think the person who cheats don't deserves to call himself a chess player. i am a high 1600 to mid 1700 player and i lost to a 1200 who played an extreemly well game. i don't know he might be very good and that game might be one of his first few games of the site. I had a question, how do you find out if the person is cheating? becasue the game and especially the ending this guy played against me was brilliant. oh well, even though i spent hours thinkin on each move, i still lost. someone want to fill me here... thanks
They were better than you!
Oct 15, 2007
0
#167
bat ears perk up - - - ^-^
"They were better than you!"
That is indeed one possibility.
Oct 16, 2007
0
#168
We bats (or relatives of bats) are quiet and serene denizens of the darkness who only want to be let alone to go our peaceful ways and to indulge upon our occassional cravings for human flesh and blood.
Is that too much to ask?
KingFork wrote: I thought loosing was just as - if not more important than winning in chess. I'm not saying we should try to loose but it does teach us more about the game than winning does. We can go back, ananlyze our mistakes, and see where we went wrong. In the end your rating in chess is just a ballpark figure in terms of what kind of chess player you are. It's sad that people think their rating is more important than actually learning something about the game.
here here, I agree with this full heartedly. The only problem that I have with that is that I dont learn from my mistakes, but then like a lot of things in my life they will one day fall into place and it will all become clear.
However when that day arrives I will be so riddled with arthritus and disease etc that I wont be able to do anything. Ha Ha Ha
Oct 16, 2007
0
#170
I'm not sure which makes me more angry: those who cheat or those who lose and accuse the winner of cheating. Both are annoying and both show poor sportsmanship. I've been accused a couple of times when I beat someone rated higher than me, but usually it was because of their own blunder and it was easy to find moves that I also missed that could have led to a win much earlier/easier. It's sad that people cheat, but it is equally pathetic that people automatically assume someone is cheating when they win.
Phobetor wrote: Etienne wrote: What's the point in cheating anyway, not like if there was money or something to be won, no? The only point is playing on this website is improvement and fun, if there is another rational reason enlighten me, and cheating goes against both. Thus I dare conclude that cheaters are: a) absurd beings b) irrational beings c) unintelligent beings, neither of the three one wants to be.
Cheaters usually just do it to please their ego. By cheating they win alot of games, which may make them think that they are actually good chess players. Of course there is some very illogical reasoning behind this (since they're not the ones who win, but the computers), but it just makes them think that they're actually good. Wouldn't it make you feel good if your name was on the top players list, with a very high rating, and inbetween players like YelenaDembo or billwall?
If there is a way to cheat than people will find it,unfortunately.I do feel people who are found to be cheating should be banned,But before being allowed to return should also be forced to win against a truly top rating player.As their previous record shown them to be...
Bishop357 wrote
If there is a way to cheat than people will find it,unfortunately.I do feel people who are found to be cheating should be banned,But before being allowed to return should also be forced to win against a truly top rating player.As their previous record shown them to be...
Fair point there Bishop357, There is no reason to cheat but it may be that these people who do cheat can play at that level and want to progrees top a rating they feel is more closely related to their game play so, if someone is thought to be or found to be cheating, yes they should play a game against a few people of similar (truly gained) rated ability to see if they truly are at that level of game play.
if they truely can play at this level then a suspention and slight rating drop would be in order, If they are not capable of this then a longer period of suspention could be enforced and then reintroduced with a lower than average rating.
A three strikes out rule may be a good idea as well. Three suspended periods increasing in length and then its out period, no excuse no reasoning, no if and or but.
runningrocker wrote: ... if someone is thought to be or found to be cheating, yes they should play a game against a few people of similar (truly gained) rated ability to see if they truly are at that level of game play. ...
And what if these guys with truly gained rating do not want to play with somebody accused of cheating?
HotFlow wrote:
Then they will be castrated.
:-) fair enough
lubo wrote:
runningrocker wrote: ...
if someone is thought to be or found to be cheating, yes they should play a game against a few people of similar (truly gained) rated ability to see if they truly are at that level of game play.
...
And what if these guys with truly gained rating do not want to play with somebody accused of cheating?
That is a valid point to make but surely out of all the members on chess.com there would be someone willing to play against these guys..
Castration by the way seems a wee bit harse why not just cut their balls off, hahaha :-)
I was playing a rated game the other day and my higher-rated opponent very kindly decided to let me off with blundering away my queen, as I'd done in previous games. He made a nonsense rook move, I put my queen back, he reversed his rook move and we carried on. We discussed all this in the chat window and I offered to resign if I got into a mate-in-one position. He declined this offer.
Later in the game, sure enough, I had mate next move. I told him what the move was and offered a draw. After some deliberation, he accepted. My rating went up and his down, but not as much as they would have done had I checkmated him, as he was perfectly happy for me to do.
Obviously, none of this constitutes cheating - but would it be seen as such by someone who was looking only at the moves made?
I think, most of this would be moot once there is live chess or blitz chess. Cheaters won't have much time in those cases...
live games and day games theres a place for them all here in Chess.com.
O would much prefer to play a game at onve rather than the day games, but then that is not suitable to everyone, as I cant think past the end of the mouse mat let alone three days into the game, I know that in theory it doesnt matter how much time it takes between a move and the next but my gray matter cant hold that stuff for that long.
In the words of Homer Simpson, everytime I learn something new it pishes something old out my brain.
Many valid points and counter points have been made, on how people cheating on this site will get caught, but if players were considering cheating on a serious level, they would do so by using a chess computer instead of a chess program or engine. This could not be monitored...
As to whether such people would be just kidding themselves, and not really learning anything, and so not improving their chess - well I feel that these arguments are a bit of a red herring. Cheaters on this site would improve simply by playing out the moves on the/a chess computer - it's human nature! Cheating is another form of mimicking or copying from a certain point of view, and we all learn from mimicking and copying.
"Yasser Arafat, he always looked a bit similar to a rat (or is that just me?)"
I can't say. I don't know what you look like.