There are TONS of cheaters on this website. But not only that. Just as bad as the cheaters, there are also 'cheater enablers' (such as "wafflemaster"...what a ridiculous screenname) who defend the cheaters and, instead of admitting the problem of cheaters on this site, they will basically accuse you of being a sore loser. When I play chess games, I don't care if I win or lose. Losing is not the issue; it's the rampant cheating (people using chess engines) that I can't stand. Earlier today I started a post about this topic, bringing attention to the problem of cheaters on chess.com and, big surprise, chess.com deleted that post. Obviously they don't want any negative discussion about their site, even when that discussion is the truth.
Why would someone who is cheating have a low enough rating to play you?
Oh no sorry, I forgot, the whole world is plotting against you. Yeah, quit chess, there are too many cheaters there as soon as you go over 1000.
Winning move for black was ... Qc1+, not the promotion.
This is way too god play for such rating level.
Jesus....you aren't a GM yourself. People win the lottery all the time.
Sometimes a bad player plays a few good moves.
@Scottrf: You do realize that anyone can play against any opponent, no matter what rating they have, right? So your question is totally irrelevant to what the original post was about (about cheaters and cheating). Was your question trying to change the subject, or ? I'll say it again below:
Not true, because most people limit their seeks.
But assuming it was, you haven't played any high rated players, so what explanation is there for these cheaters being rated in the 800s and 900s like you seem to play?
@Scottrf: You do realize that anyone can play against any opponent, no matter what rating they have, right?
You might want to check your facts first.
I think you missed the point.
The way I look at it, you cheat to beat players that you couldn't otherwise beat. Average on this site is a bit under 1300.
If you rate about 1100, 75% of players will usually beat you. Why would they feel the need to cheat?
@Chesslover1995 -I believe Scottrf's point is that at that level, unless the "cheater" can hardly play chess, cheating wouldn't be necessary.
Irontiger, you sound like the one who's paranoid, and delusional, because you refuse to accept the reality and to admit that there actually IS a problem of cheaters on this website. Perhaps you are one of the 'cheater enablers'? Maybe that would explain why you're so quick to defend cheaters?
I think there is a window of 150-200 rating points above and below you in which a player who is lower rated can beat you and you can beat a better rated player(not considering very obvious blunders). It mostly depends on opening in a fair game. If you have good position you have very good chances.
Most of the players in my rating range loose(including me) because they do not pause to think why the opponent played that move.
So, this is definitely an anomaly where a rating gap of around 600 was bridged. But its your mistake too. I only took one look and I think in the endgame when u played R*c2, u could have pushed the e-pawn. that problem probably would have been harder to solve for him.
On the matter of cheating, I have never played anyone who cheats in a live game. I have played computers and they kill you in tactical details, both when you are attacking or defending. Always, I see moves played based on intuition.
On the contrary, online games might be altogether different matter.
@Chesslover1995 -There is a problem of cheating everywhere. Many of us have been on this site long enough to know that there is a group for discussions of cheaters and cheating, and that's why it's removed from the open forums.
Edit: This isn't quite accurate. A group was allowed to be made for discussion of cheaters and cheating because it was not to be discussed in the open forums.
@Scottrf Your probably right just mad at myself for losing.
Not saying he didn't play well (and I only scanned over it, looks quite mistake free for a 900), but the moves look pretty natural and not too deep. I think he just had a good game (maybe a proper analysis reveals different).
totally agree with Scott, doesnt seem too special
No discussion of cheating in the public forums please.
If you'd like to report someone: