Any easy way to tell if your opponent was using an engine?

I know it may be the "hip" thing to do to defend batgirl as she is a local celebrity (thats putting it lightly)...

But it is not her status I defend here. I actually thought her points were informative and interesting. Considering there is not a single post in this whole thread that hasn't been replicated (needlessly) from 20 other threads, Batgirl's post was the only original thought in this thread.

Well worth the read if you skipped over it.

I think you guys are just lazy.  If you are too lazy to read more than one paragraph, then you have major problems.  I guess that's what the tv generation is all about.

The tv generation affects not only the current generation, but sucked in the last two generations as well.  Now there is one big group of lazy tv watchers from ages 1 - 101.

I'm actually proud to say I have never owned a tv.  What shows are on today? I have no clue.  I always hear people talking about what they saw last night.  And to somebody who doesn't watch tv, people like that sound like a bunch of idiots.

You want instant satisfaction, don't read the book, watch the movie.  forget the fan, turn on the a.c.  Who wants to exercise when you can sit on the couch.  Play outside? do people still do that?

Yeah, it is completely easy for me to read Batgirl's long and informative posts. A nice little Attention Deficit Disorder, served with ketchup, anyone? Mmmmm....

oginschile wrote:

I know it may be the "hip" thing to do to defend batgirl as she is a local celebrity (thats putting it lightly)...

But it is not her status I defend here. I actually thought her points were informative and interesting. Considering there is not a single post in this whole thread that hasn't been replicated (needlessly) from 20 other threads, Batgirl's post was the only original thought in this thread.

Well worth the read if you skipped over it.

Well said.  Concur also with LoneWolfEburg (post #46), it is easy to read Batgirl's long and always informative posts.

if we have quite finished singing the praises - if someone thinks their opponent is using an engine i think it would be a good idea to ask > are you using an engine or are you just a good player ?

this gives the opponent the opportunity to state that they are making their own moves, or if they were maybe they will stop when realising they were caught out

Why bother?

If opponent gang up on u whether with computer program or gaggle of friends, the game probably would get a lot more interesting and challenging because of it... so much the better.... unless you'd rather play with dull unimaginative movements?!!

even as i was typing it ( post #48 ) i realised i was typing a lot of crap, but it was then easier to submit rather than erase

batgirl wrote:

if there were only one or two such games, this type of forum wouldn't proliferate.

Since I essentially agree with most of what batgirl wrote, I've only quoted the portion I disagree with.

Allow me to begin with an analogy: a study was done in which people were asked to rate their own driving skills as either below average, average, or above average; 90% of people responded that they were "above average" drivers.

A second story: someone on another chess forum posted the quote, "definition of a master: everyone's secret opinion of themselves."

The point is that while I do acknowlege that some small % of online players probably do cheat from time to time, I think that these types of discussions proliferate because lots of people jump to the conclusion that their opponent is cheating in cases where they were simply outplayed.

Just look at the kinds of things people have been pointing to in this discussion. Opponents who are losing initially and then find a clever way to turn the game around; people who have lost despite playing an "error-free game" (complete rubbish! even Capablanca never played an error-free game!); opponents who "never blunder"; etc. Or take a look at this gem:

>>I think that Chess.com is rife with players making use of engines, especially in the lower levels.

If someone is using Rybka to make their moves, why do they have a low rating?

I think these cheating discussions more often than not result from one of the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: A game between two low-rated players. Player A finds a mildly clever sequence to defeat player B; player B didn't see it coming at all, and therefore suspects his opponent of cheating.

Refer to the 2 stories I told at the start of this post. If your rating is low, there's a reason. That reason is: compared to lots of people, you're not very good (and yes, this applies to me too!). If your opponent saw something you didn't, he outplayed you. Plain and simple. Your name isn't Gary Kasparov, you've got lots left to learn, stop whining and read some chess books. And keep in mind: the fact that a player's rating is low doesn't mean he's incapable of making good moves or finding a clever sequence from time to time.

Scenario 2: A game between two high ranked players. Player A beats player B; B accuses A of cheating.

Your rating is high because on average, in the long run, if you played thousands of games against thousands of randomly selected chess players, you'd beat most of them most of the time. That's all your rating means. It isn't a magic bullet that gives you invincibility powers and turns you into a god. You met a strong opponent and he outplayed you. You've done the same to lots of people before. C'est la vie.

Scenario 3: Player A is high-rated; player B is low-rated. Player B beats player A, A accuses B of cheating.

Statistically this scenario is likeliest to be a case of cheating. However, keep in mind that a large rating spread means player A has a high probability of winning; high probability =/= sure thing. Amateurs have drawn (and even beat!) GMs in simuls and such. You're rated 600 points higher than him and he beat you? Well, he had a 4% chance of doing that. Good fortune smiled upon him this time.

Bottom line: I bet that out of all allegations of cheating, probably <5% actually are cases of cheating. The other 95%+ of the time, it's simply a case where people give themselves too much credit and give others too little.

torqamada wrote:

Why are the majority of commentors (99%) to these posts all low rated or non playing?

Why does your profile say you are 106 years old?

torqamada wrote:

Why are the majority of commentors (99%) to these posts all low rated or non playing?

Because they are also the ones who feel most strongly that they have been cheated.

Reason: they are the most likely to lose and fail to understand why they lost, thus jumping to the conclusion their opponent is cheating.

torqamada wrote:

Why are the majority of commentors (99%) to these posts all low rated or non playing?

Why do the veiled inuendos come from countries that cater to the seedier side of human nature?

De-Lar>>Why does your profile say you are 106 years old?

mytself>>Why do the veiled inuendos come from countries that cater to the seedier side of human nature?

Ok guys, in fairness to him - he does have the highest rating of anyone who posted in this thread.

when i'm 106, i too am planning to have a rating > 2000

oginschile wrote:

Do like me...

If he beats you.. he's totally cheating.

If you beat him, he sucks and is not worth playing again.

It is oh so satisfying to be me.

 That is it totally. In fact, on ICC(internet chess club) there is a guy with the handle of Fred who accuses everyone who plays him and wins as a cheater. I played him three games total and he tried to nail me. I only won one game of the three. Cheating isn't worth the time or trouble- a person doesn't learn or improve his ability if he lets a machine or another person do that.

I treat chess as an art.  I value my games like masterpieces.  They are few compared to thousands played for fun.  I play hundreds of games as a preparation before accepting a challenge from an online user.  Because I play many games against chess engines I can then tell whether my online opponent is a human, a centaur, or a pure machine.

That game I told about 4 years ago, I stopped playing chess for the next three years.  Then I tried to log in to gameknot.com and found out that my account had been deleted and so my games archive as well.  I created another account, and again I went 12-0.  During my 13th game I decided that it will be my last game in that site because I found a better site to play chess - chess.com.  I lost the 13th game due to an oversight on my part.

I started my games here in chess.com in a nice style until I lost three games due to 'timed out'.  I have life outside of chess and as much as possible I want my games to be finished within the day.  Those lost games were not losing games - one is clearly winning.  The other type of cheating is like this: when my opponent is in the verge of losing, he will make his moves almost every after 3 days and the worst is that he even went on vacation!  If anyone issues a challenge, make that challenge worth his opponent's time.  I don't like chess to become a waiting game.

is a marquess a marquis that can play chess ?

99% of posters to these types of threads are trolls looking to get a rise out of uni-dimensional, emotionally stunted, misanthropic teenagers. Those who can't recognize their face in the mirror from the hordes that are also struggling to find their identity in a sea of no morality. Standing on an island screaming, 'I want to be accepted for what I believe'.(if it's ok with everyone else, that is). You don't have to understand chess to know why people accuse others of cheating, you have to understand people. Some are truly weiners, others are weiner wannabe's.

torqamada wrote:

You first have to understand chess to understand if your opponent is employing a cyber brain. I would suggest that the 99% of the posters to these threads wouldn't recognize a comp move from their face in the morning mirror!

Incredibly, I actually agree with your sentiment here Torqamada - and that's precisely why I was inquiring whether there were any tools that can assist me in making that determination.

By the looks of it, it sounds like the final answer to the original question is "No".

Many thanks to those who understood and provided helpful, objective insight. 

As for the others... well, it's intriguing that you were able to read so much into my original post and pronounce, amongst other things, that:

1. I should just stop whining and not have such a fragile ego.  Although I'm generally certain that my language was whine-free, I'll be more careful in the future and perhaps run my postings through an Anti-Whine filter before further postings.
2. I shouldn't care whether my opponent is cheating or not - a good game is a good game and opportunities for post-game study and improvement always abound.  I can only speak for myself here, but part of the reason I play is to face opponents that are near my (admittedly low) level - AND I would be comforted by the fact that the site is doing what they can to ensure that games are clean and free of rampant cheating.  If all I cared about was participating in a pure game regardless of whether I win or lose then hey, I've got a 10-year-old handheld model that can stomp on me like a Narc at a biker rally 100% of the time.

Ultimately if someone did offer up an easy human-check solution, I would have simply put that into my toolbox for use when I felt that I was clearly trounced by a flawless opponent.  Then, I'd run my little check, and if it came up "Silicon" then I would have merely smiled contently to myself and took pride in the fact that hey, at least I lasted x moves before succumbing.  And that would have been that.

Next game.

Babyferatu

Babyferatu wrote:

As for the others... well, it's intriguing that you were able to read so much into my original post and pronounce, amongst other things

<...>

It's not necessarily about you, specifically.

Cheating is an issue that gets discussed practically every week in these forums. People are eager to hop on the bandwagon and complain that they too have been victimized by hordes of 1200-rated chess.com users using Deep Blue to pick their moves.

One could say: "Lance, if you don't want to read it you don't have to." But I feel that if I let these whining sessions pass without comment, and if others like me do the same, these threads will become a source of positive reinforcement for those complaining about cheating.

The point is that every time this topic comes up the answer is the same. The chess.com staff has said, if you suspect someone of cheating then use the Report Abuse link at the bottom of the page to report them instead of calling them out in the forums. I'm not saying that you accused an individual of cheating, nor that you personally were whining; just that this is where these types of discussions always end up going.

One more thing:

Babyferatu wrote:

and pronounce, amongst other things, that:

1. ...

2. ...

You forgot:

3. 99.9% of your opponents never cheat, so don't spend too much energy thinking about it.