Gokukid wrote:
Any EASY way to spot cheaters? I have one, and not only easy, but very easy! That is, if your opponent sends you a chat message like: 'I need to rush to the TOILET. I'll be back in a few...' Ask Silvio Danailov and Veselin Topalov - I believe they will totally agree on this, that whenever a chessplayer rushes to the toilet, that's the easy way to tell he's cheating.
Or he has genuinely has recurring bowel problems.
therobz wrote:
Run your engine at the same time, and compare his moves with your engines?
but how do u know what engine is he using? u can use all of them
down with the cheaters
Without knowing who is actually on the other side of the board, it is hard to say with any certainty they are a cheat. Just because their moves always fall within the first few moves suggested by an engine does not necessarily mean anything. Proper play can dictate the same moves without the use of a chess engine. I think there is some cheating going on, but I also think there are some people who think they are better than they really are who are looking for a way to dismiss their losses.
This is an interesting question! In theory a there should be no way to tell for sure weather somone is using a computer or if they are just excelent at calculations.
But, most people don't play like computers, they have a certain style. Even the best players still have a style. They will favor some moves over another, even when the situation does not suit it, simply because they are more comfortable looking for forks vs skewers, development vs board position etc. So the answer seems to be to find the players style, or lack thereof.
I'm not a programer so I don't know how these things work, but it seems that a program could be made to analyze a players moves over several games and by comparing their moves to a computer's moves, establish a profile of that player's habits. Some players will have a tendency to attack for example or to chose a particular line in an opening even if it's not the best move availible.
The existence of style and prefrence is the one telltale sign that you're dealing with a human mind versus a computer! If they have no prefrence to any specific tactic or strategy, then they're probably not thinking like a human, because humans stick with what they know.
So I guess I'm saying you should try to detect the human instead of detecting the computer.
A couple of questions to throw in:-
Is the cheating player cheating you or just cheating himself?
Does one need a higher chess rating to feel like a better player?
Is there enough cheating players to make a huge difference to our scores over a long period of time?
If a player starts to cheat against you, have you already won?
I had a game about four years ago, I used to play online chess in another website I think you know this www.gameknot.com. I started my way there going 12-0 on my first twelve games. And then I was challenged by someone with a record of 24-0. When we played the opening (I was playing White) I noticed that this guy is not that good. His development was too weak, he got his bishops completely hemmed in, his pieces were awkwardly placed, his pawn structure with so many weaknesses. So I dominated the center with ease, I had a very strong attack trying to win his a8-rook. I hate to share this but I thought I must say it somehow: whenever I'm in a comfortable, winning position, my ratio of confidence against complacency doubles. I became too complacent I recall, I switched to going after the king - which is trapped in the center - instead of continuing with the attack on the rook. I played my Queen 'en prise'. After that blunder the surge of the momentum become a shock, it seemed like all of a sudden I was playing against the strongest player in the world. I was trying to recover but the remainder of his moves, as I understood it, was very strong. Despite my solid position, even without the Queen, my opponent played like a machine. I wasn't ashamed of the defeat, but the basis of my anguish is that I had the feeling that I lost the game due to 'unfair' play.
Hmm, I am new to Chess.com, but I was thinking if "groups" exists on this forum, why not have a "Non-Engine Players" group?
I personally would rather not play against a computer, just because there would seem like such a large difference in my skill (which is relatively low, ill be honest...) and a computers. But, in the end I really don't care. Playing chess is fun regardless of whats going on. :)
In some of my games I can sense that my opponent makes frequent suspicious trips to the bathroom.
I too would love to know of a way to tell if someone is using computer. I know I haven't encountered it here yet (still pretty new here), but what if you lose a game that determined 1st place in a tournamnt?.... or if you knocked out of a tournament?... because someone cheated?
Man, this must be the thread that won't die. . .
"you said you needed peace of mind that you were beaten by flesh and not
silicon. i guess my question is why does it matter?"
In one sense this is a fair question. In this type of play two faceless opponents move the representational pieces on their computer screen in a game in which winning and losing really isn't important except for whatever value we might give it in our own heads.
But wait. . .
Just because there's no money or real world consequences involvled, just because the value of winning is a totally personal one, does that mean it doesn't matter whether we win or lose? [And if, indeed, if my opponent is using a program, winning for me is probably not in the cards, so to speak. (Let me upgrade that "probably" to "definitely.")]
There are many reasons it does matter.
First, if other people are like me, then each and every game I play is a gauge by which I evaluate my ability in this difficult game. When I'm beaten by some unforseen tactical blow, I can accept such a coup knowing it comes form a tactical genius (a chess program), but if it comes from my 1700 rated opponent, everydog (while I understand that even everydog has it's day), then I have to evaluate my own tactical skill in light of this. This may not be important in the scope of world affairs, but it's important to me.
Secondly, like it or not, it does affect my meaningless rating. One or two such games will have a negligible effect, sure, but if there were only one or two such games, this type of forum wouldn't proliferate. My meaningless rating affects what opponents I can attract, as it also contributes to my sense of self-worth and self-confidence.
Third, when I play a game, I generally expect my opponent to have human foibles. If I'm playing against a master, I lower this expectation to nearly zero, but I seldom play masters. So, I expect my opponent to make mistakes, just as I'll make mistakes. I expect him to get greedy or occasionally fall for a trap, just as I will at times. I expect him to make some weak moves that might allow me to create a beautiful Morphy-like combination. Chess programs deny me those possibilites.
Fourth, while I don't expect to win every game, I do expect to win my fair share. I generally enjoy playing people of equal-to-slightly-better ability which gives me a chance without being a cake-walk. I don't mind losing, but I certainly don't enjoy it in the least. Chess programs deny me even the chance to win.
Fifth, on a less personal level, cheaters chip way at the foundation of sites such as this one. While it may not matter so some, to others the cheating problem matters a lot. Who's to decided what someone believes is important? Many folks who love chess simply refuse to play under these conditions with the potential for cheating so easy and the reality of cheating so obvious.
Of course, I agree with most of what oginschile, AquaMan, Munchies and others have said on this topic. But, while I realize that it can be dangerous and potentially unfair to label your opponent as a cheater, I refuse to dismiss cheating as unimportant (as in Why does it matter?) . I think it's highly important yet difficult to do anything about. So, we end up having to accept cheating and all its negative aspects to a certain degree if we want to play this sort of chess (which I don't play anymore). Still, cheating must be fought against relentlessly using every means available.
I think people who have accepted the inevitability of cheating tend to roll with the punch and brush it off and say, "Why does it matter?" Personally, I think when games are played in such a milieu as this, every single blunder-free lost game should be analyzed by each individual (not computer analyzed and not for finding program agreement) for self-improvement. In doing so, one will get a feel for his opponents and a greater understanding of what his opponents are capable. This insight, I believe, will prove invaluable in determining the humanity of moves in other games - if for no other reason, for one's own peace of mind.
batgirl wrote:
Man, this must be the thread that won't die. . . "you said you needed peace of mind that you were beaten by flesh and not In one sense this is a fair question. In this type of play two faceless opponents move the representational pieces on their computer screen in a game in which winning and losing really isn't important except for whatever value we might give it in our own heads. But wait. . . Just because there's no money or real world consequences involvled, just because the value of winning is a totally personal one, does that mean it doesn't matter whether we win or lose? [And if, indeed, if my opponent is using a program, winning for me is probably not in the cards, so to speak. (Let me upgrade that "probably" to "definitely.")] First, if other people are like me, then each and every game I play is a gauge by which I evaluate my ability in this difficult game. When I'm beaten by some unforseen tactical blow, I can accept such a coup knowing it comes form a tactical genius (a chess program), but if it comes from my 1700 rated opponent, everydog (while I understand that even everydog has it's day), then I have to evaluate my own tactical skill in light of this. This may not be important in the scope of world affairs, but it's important to me. Of course, I agree with most of what oginschile, AquaMan, Munchies and others have said on this topic. But, while I realize that it can be dangerous and potentially unfair to label your opponent as a cheater, I refuse to dismiss cheating as unimportant (as in Why does it matter?) . I think it's highly important yet difficult to do anything about. So, we end up having to accept cheating and all its negative aspects to a certain degree if we want to play this sort of chess (which I don't play anymore). Still, cheating must be fought against relentlessly using every means available.
silicon. i guess my question is why does it matter?"
There are many reasons it does matter.
Secondly, like it or not, it does affect my meaningless rating. One or two such games will have a negligible effect, sure, but if there were only one or two such games, this type of forum wouldn't proliferate. My meaningless rating affects what opponents I can attract, as it also contributes to my sense of self-worth and self-confidence.
Third, when I play a game, I generally expect my opponent to have human foibles. If I'm playing against a master, I lower this expectation to nearly zero, but I seldom play masters. So, I expect my opponent to make mistakes, just as I'll make mistakes. I expect him to get greedy or occasionally fall for a trap, just as I will at times. I expect him to make some weak moves that might allow me to create a beautiful Morphy-like combination. Chess programs deny me those possibilites.
Fourth, while I don't expect to win every game, I do expect to win my fair share. I generally enjoy playing people of equal-to-slightly-better ability which gives me a chance without being a cake-walk. I don't mind losing, but I certainly don't enjoy it in the least. Chess programs deny me even the chance to win.
Fifth, on a less personal level, cheaters chip way at the foundation of sites such as this one. While it may not matter so some, to others the cheating problem matters a lot. Who's to decided what someone believes is important? Many folks who love chess simply refuse to play under these conditions with the potential for cheating so easy and the reality of cheating so obvious.
I think people who have accepted the inevitability of cheating tend to roll with the punch and brush it off and say, "Why does it matter?" Personally, I think when games are played in such a milieu as this, every single blunder-free lost game should be analyzed by each individual (not computer analyzed and not for finding program agreement) for self-improvement. In doing so, one will get a feel for his opponents and a greater understanding of what his opponents are capable. This insight, I believe, will prove invaluable in determining the humanity of moves in other games - if for no other reason, for one's own peace of mind.
Please batgirl don't post long stuff like this I never read posts this long...
ok sorry
The battle between good and evil. It is easy to obey the law, if there is a policeman present. The value of honor, integrity, and a persons word has increased. As more and more people succumb to instant gratification, the easy way, win at all costs mentality, the person who plays it straight is valued over the cheat. Unfortunately, parents err when training their children.
Discipline is administered with the words "Don't ever let me catch you doing that again". When little Johnny is given the chance to do it again, he figures a way to not get caught. Rather than why it is wrong. So the wrongdoing is not addressed, just the act of getting caught.
whole sectors of society justify what they do with the rationalization 'Everyone's doing it', or 'What's the big deal'. When the political, religious, business, and sports figures, cheat to get ahead, how can you expect little Johnny to see the value of not cheating. Only the value of not getting caught. To change the world is not possible, the person who holds fast to integrity, will be ostracized, humiliated, and finally killed. (socially or financially), if he exposes the cheater. Labeled 'snitch'or 'tattletale', 'whiner', etc. etc.The U.S. gov't had to pass a law to protect the "whistle blower".
So if little Johnny thinks he'll get caught, he'll refrain. If he values his self worth, he'll refrain. The sheer numbers of cheaters who refrain from cheating until they find a way not to get caught, will make it hard to find the ones who won't cheat because of self worth. There are those who have chosen not to participate in venues where cheating may occur, until they find the latter of the two. Crooked dice, marked cards, weighted bingo balls, cheat codes, chess progs, steroids, juiced horses, income taxes, drugged dogs, hanging chads, even FIDE, the list goes on and on. When it happens to others it's one thing, when it happens to you it's another. Make sure your Pavlov's response to possible cheating is the right one.
Luke_Skywalker wrote:
ok sorry
it may have been uneccessary replication but you still had a fair comment.
i have read some of batgirl's history articles and they are informative and justify lots of column inches but in general if a point is not made in 10 lines or less they probably should be summarised more efficiently
Any EASY way to spot cheaters? I have one, and not only easy, but very easy! That is, if your opponent sends you a chat message like: 'I need to rush to the TOILET. I'll be back in a few...' Ask Silvio Danailov and Veselin Topalov - I believe they will totally agree on this, that whenever a chessplayer rushes to the toilet, that's the easy way to tell he's cheating.