Does it count as cheating if I use another chess engine to battle this chess engine to see their variations and how they react to moves and such? Also may i use in vote chess AFTER I make my vote to see what the computer would have done?
1. not cheating if you play against our computer :)
2. yes - you may not use an engine until after the entire game is over.
Does it count as cheating if I use another chess engine to battle this chess engine to see their variations and how they react to moves and such? Also may i use in vote chess AFTER I make my vote to see what the computer would have done?
Using any engine at any point during an ongoing game is cheating.
But I thought Erik stated you can use a engine to analyze but not for use with the vote chess, or is it only for after the game? Because if so then I'm guessing I'm marked as a cheater because I used an engine once for the GM Becerra vs Chess.com to see how we messed up and how the comp would've avoided this.
...
3. I think culturally, different people have different perspectives on just exactly what "cheating" is. Some people, form some cultures, do not even view engine us as Cheating. I am hesitant to call them "bad people", but also hesitant to play them a game of chess! So it's a rather complex issue, really.
...
Cultural interpretations of what does and does not constitute cheating are entirely irrelevant though -- it's a question of agreeing too, and then choosing to violate the rules of this site. It's pretty cut and dry and not open to interpretation, cultural or otherwise.
But I thought Erik stated you can use a engine to analyze but not for use with the vote chess, or is it only for after the game? Because if so then I'm guessing I'm marked as a cheater because I used an engine once for the GM Becerra vs Chess.com to see how we messed up and how the comp would've avoided this.
As long as any and all outside analysis is performed after the game is complete I'm pretty sure it's OK (Erik & co., please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here). If you used an engine before completion of the game, it was in violation of the rules.
But I thought Erik stated you can use a engine to analyze but not for use with the vote chess, or is it only for after the game? Because if so then I'm guessing I'm marked as a cheater because I used an engine once for the GM Becerra vs Chess.com to see how we messed up and how the comp would've avoided this.
As long as any and all outside analysis is performed after the game is complete I'm pretty sure it's OK (Erik & co., please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here). If you used an engine before completion of the game, it was in violation of the rules.
Analysis after the game by a computer or by another person, or by an alien from Neptune, are all fine. :-) We wouldn't offer Computer analysis for finished games here if we were going to flag you for cheating after you used it. :-)
There is at least one little bit of gray area. Let's say that I am in a thematic tournament which runs verrry slooooowly. Let's say that I then play in an OTB tournament, and try out my new opening, against a strong FM.
It's reasonable to think that I might analyze this game with a computer afterwards, if this were my custom. But what happens if that game comes pretty close to following one of my chess.com games? Obviously I'm not going to depart from my normal routine (if that really were my routine). So for some point of some of the games, I may have computer assistance. But I guess that later on in the games, it would revert back to normal.
My disclaimer is that I don't analyze afterwards with computers. But I would like to, and I would like to have that option. Presumably the complex mathematical minds internal to chess.com take all this into account, right? :-)
I think that it would be a great idea if Erik makes a separate topic containing only the FAQ about cheating and the list of cheaters (updated weekly let's say). And this discussion to be put into a separate topic, if you feel it is needed.
One main concern people had was that chess.com do not ban many cheaters. I shared this concern. But now, seeing the long list of names, I can understand that they do figth against this cheating plague.
costelus, good to see that you've come around. I agree, it's always good to see feedback data for confirmation.
costelus, good to see that you've come around. I agree, it's always good to see feedback data for confirmation.
yep. i think we made the right decision to do this. we'll keep adding people to the thread as they are discovered.
I hope you can insert them to the beginning of the thread, so we don't have to wade through dozens of pages just to find your posts, Erik. :-)
This is very good, to consolidate the issue like this. But I agree with posters who suggest the list of cheaters and the comments for response by chess.com staff be placed under separate threads for better convenience. Perhaps also to show the last registered ratings of the cheaters so we can see at what levels cheating occurs.
Multiple accounts also break the rules here. Is chess.com going to publish a list of such accounts that have been closed - the master account as well as its subordinate account(s)? If so, it would be helpful if chess.com states the reason for closing the accounts - whether for cheating or for opening multiple accounts.
The only thing that would bother me is an unjust accusation. What if Capablanca or Kramnik would come play on Chess.com (they are notorious for their computer-like accuracy) - would they get kicked for cheating?
If so I should watch out that I do not improve too much :P.
The cheaters I reported did play much better than Capa or Kramnik. In general, there is a huge difference between human and computer play. Even if that human happens to be named Kasparov...
what if both you an a family member play on chess.com have the same city an state listing, but have seperate accounts, an dont share the same comp? Is this ok?
Surely this is not a problem.
Remember back in the days of Korchnoi-Karpov and Karpov-Kasparov when Karpov would cheat by hiring psychics to sit in the audience and mentally control the play of his opponents? Few would admit that they were really afraid of the psychics, but having them there often put players off their game because they had to concentrate on the game as well as blocking out the mind control waves. If they lost they could blame it on the distraction. Now players who are outplayed have a new excuse- - my opponent did not make the moves, a machine did. In some cases this is true, but some just can't accept that anyone plays well. They may be 1400-1500 with a losing record, but no one could be better than them and see things they don't. Look at some of the comments we see: if a player takes a long time on routine moves they are using a program! If someone makes a strong move quickly they are using a program! If someone always wins(even against weak players) they are using a program! If someone alternately has good and bad games they are sometimes using a program! If someone makes a move that would never occur to you they are using a program! If they know the openings better than you they are using a program! If they play the middle game better than you they are using a program! If they play the endgame better than you they are using a program! If you lose every game, everyone is using a program! How did losing players feel good about themselves before there were computers?? Or psychics?
Very well said Doctorjosephthomas, I could't agree more. It's ok to lose, no need for paranoia and throwing blame around blindly. Remember, loosing too much is also considered cheating since apparently you are trying to lower your rating and get into those tournamets that have a rating limit. Go figure ....
How about this: if someone, over more than one game, consistently matches the top choices of an engine (not just the first choice), therefore displaying a playing strength far above any World Champion, there are two variants:
- either the person is the next World Champion
- or he/she is a cheater
I am more pesimistic so I choose the second alternative.
I do not suspect anybody of cheating based on ratings, moving time, loss/win record or other such minor issues. The large majority of my losses were due to my blunders. I have absolutely no suspicion about most of my opponents. Why most? Because I played with MirceaH, for instance.
Remember back in the days of Korchnoi-Karpov and Karpov-Kasparov when Karpov would cheat by hiring psychics to sit in the audience and mentally control the play of his opponents? Few would admit that they were really afraid of the psychics, but having them there often put players off their game because they had to concentrate on the game as well as blocking out the mind control waves. If they lost they could blame it on the distraction."...
Fisher got a Lombardi on his Team, Spassky hire a PhD. at Psychology Nikolay Krogius...
Kasparov got a Psychic, who admited, that Kasparov won the Matches, because he help him to defeat Karpov...
Just for curiosity, Kasparov and Karpov intrude own Spyes on the Opponent's Teams, who repeteadly sold own Patron's Secrets... This is a fighting Top World Reality!
I like the listing. I was curious to see if I played any of them. Unfortunately, my memory isn't that good.. can't remember. Lol. Anyway, a cursory glance give me the impression of individuals having more than 3 accounts before being caught. ie. ..747.., king...
Translation, these guys will get in again, using a different name. Sad, you have a job cut up for you, Erik. Lol.
Does it count as cheating if I use another chess engine to battle this chess engine to see their variations and how they react to moves and such? Also may i use in vote chess AFTER I make my vote to see what the computer would have done?