A tablebase tells you the proven best move in the position. For example, using an endgame tablebase you could pull a win in something stupid like 40 moves out of certain very complicated barely winning positions with perfect play.
A database is just a collection of what people have played before.
Something you can do to try and smoke out cheaters is to talk to them after the game and see if they will go over it with you. Certainly if they were the ones generating the moves, they would be able to offer up insight into the position and its needs. If your opponent cracks your nugget like a GM, but can't offer a single bit of advice from their superior play, they may not have been the one playing. If I beat someone, I am usually pretty aware of how I did it and what tools I used to break down their board weaknesses. This type of postgame discussion would also help to build your own knowledge, as well as use chess as a social tool again instead of something to bicker about on forums.
Side note- I believe Tablebases are endgame databases joined with an engine, I may be wrong.
i have two opponents who have each beaten me 4 straight. it might happen 4 more. when i do finally beat either of them, victory will be sweet. i couldn't picture cheapening that by cheating.
Lets also consider..How many of us ...Have had advisers looking over our shoulders during an evening which would make you very reluctent not to make an enlightend move...I must confess this has happend to me..!
Another explanaition possibly ..?
you are right. But is such a (statistical) proof (95 percent or so coincidence with Fritz , out of 40 moves...) officially accepted , and does it lead to punishment?
The point is also that you can selectively use a computer (for instance, in a very tactical situation, or when your position is bad, I am sure, exactly this happens most often). Then the coincidence percentage will be much lower. I had many games where my opponent played very bad, but with his back the wall he suddenly showed ingenious defensive capabilities...
In such a case, your cheating opponent will and can fight decisions of the moderators...
It wouldn't have to be anywhere near a 95% matchup to be conclusive. During the 2006 world championship match Danailov stated that Kramnik's moves were matching up with Fritz about 80% of the time. If the world champion's moves match with Fritz's 80% of the time, no one else's should be anywhere near that number.
edit: Another great thing about a system like this is that there is no way the accused can defend themselves. If their moves match up then they are guilty and that is that, they can be banned with a clear conscience.
If players are using programs, then they are cheating. That said, I doubt that they would admit it on a public forum.
cheater_1 would.
you are right. But is such a (statistical) proof (95 percent or so coincidence with Fritz , out of 40 moves...) officially accepted , and does it lead to punishment?
The point is also that you can selectively use a computer (for instance, in a very tactical situation, or when your position is bad, I am sure, exactly this happens most often). Then the coincidence percentage will be much lower. I had many games where my opponent played very bad, but with his back the wall he suddenly showed ingenious defensive capabilities...
In such a case, your cheating opponent will and can fight decisions of the moderators...
It wouldn't have to be anywhere near a 95% matchup to be conclusive. During the 2006 world championship match Danailov stated that Kramnik's moves were matching up with Fritz about 80% of the time. If the world champion's moves match with Fritz's 80% of the time, no one else's should be anywhere near that number.
edit: Another great thing about a system like this is that there is no way the accused can defend themselves. If their moves match up then they are guilty and that is that, they can be banned with a clear conscience.
I cannot see that. And there is no such thing like a 'system'. Fide wisely has not introduced such doubtful rules, and in correspondence chess computers are not prohibited at all. I am curious how on some chess servers they can really claim cheating, and ban people, it should lead only to fights with the commission, to disappointments of players
The claim of cheating and the punishment should be possible only if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. It is not possible to do it by looking at the gamesheet.
80 percent of coincidence of Kramniks moves with fritz, huh ?
So you also accuse Kramnik of cheating? Then why did he get away with it?
IF Kramnik was using a computer program being on the toilet (I am sure he didn't),
1) why 80 percent would prove the use of it, (in case of Kramnik) ?,
and
2) where should be, in your opinion, the limit of coincidence for clubplayers
like us (without elo, or up to elo 2300) ? Is it like 50 percent ? And why?
Since everybody of us can have a good day, where he plays 50 percent of his 30 moves like Fritz (one half of them is opening, which we took from the book).
It is possible to play one single game with coincidence of 50 percent in 40 moves
(it should be rare, but it is possible), still you lose against Fritz each and every game, because already two-three bad moves are enough for that!
you are right. But is such a (statistical) proof (95 percent or so coincidence with Fritz , out of 40 moves...) officially accepted , and does it lead to punishment?
The point is also that you can selectively use a computer (for instance, in a very tactical situation, or when your position is bad, I am sure, exactly this happens most often). Then the coincidence percentage will be much lower. I had many games where my opponent played very bad, but with his back the wall he suddenly showed ingenious defensive capabilities...
In such a case, your cheating opponent will and can fight decisions of the moderators...
It wouldn't have to be anywhere near a 95% matchup to be conclusive. During the 2006 world championship match Danailov stated that Kramnik's moves were matching up with Fritz about 80% of the time. If the world champion's moves match with Fritz's 80% of the time, no one else's should be anywhere near that number.
edit: Another great thing about a system like this is that there is no way the accused can defend themselves. If their moves match up then they are guilty and that is that, they can be banned with a clear conscience.
I cannot see that. And there is no such thing like a 'system'. Fide wisely has not introduced such doubtful rules, and in correspondence chess computers are not prohibited at all. I am curious how on some chess servers they can really claim cheating, and ban people, it should lead only to fights with the commission, to disappointments of players
The claim of cheating and the punishment should be possible only if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. It is not possible to do it by looking at the gamesheet.
80 percent of coincidence of Kramniks moves with fritz, huh ?
So you also accuse Kramnik of cheating? Then why did he get away with it?
IF Kramnik was using a computer program being on the toilet (I am sure he didn't),
1) why 80 percent would prove the use of it, (in case of Kramnik) ?,
and
2) where should be, in your opinion, the limit of coincidence for clubplayers
like us (without elo, or up to elo 2300) ? Is it like 50 percent ? And why?
Since everybody of us can have a good day, where he plays 50 percent of his 30 moves like Fritz (one half of them is opening, which we took from the book).
It is possible to play one single game with coincidence of 50 percent in 40 moves
(it should be rare, but it is possible), still you lose against Fritz each and every game, because already two-three bad moves are enough for that!
First of all, I am not accusing Kramnik of cheating. I am simply stating that the human world champion of chess can make the fritz recommended move roughly 80% of the time, and we lesser mortals should not be getting anywhere near that number.
Secondly, systems like the one I describe have been implemented on other turn-based websites I have subscribed to. Basically, a team of people respond to cheating accusations made. They take a large number of games played by the accused, and compare their moves to a chess engine's recommendations. I have never been on a game mod team like that so I can't tell you what the cutoff is, nor can I go into any specifics. I can tell you that I have seen a great number of subscribers banned through the work of this moderation team. Once a member is found to be cheating they are immediately banned, since the moves speak for themselves there is no possible defence the guilty member can conjure up. Also, I have never seen the forum community complain about a member being banned.
Systems like these are not perfect because they can't catch everyone. However they can keep the number of engine users down and discourage others from using engines themselves.
i personally sometimes use the chessbase to study the differents lines that the game can go ahead, but without using any motor, only like the "analisys board" of that web, but with the posibility of save diferents lines and make comments. I dont thing thats cheating.
But i want to make a question, from the rule that commentet monicker:
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed. " whatsthe difference betwen tablebases and databases? if any want can explain in plain wordswill be great.