In before the lock.
Cheater detection
Sort:
Jun 22, 2017
0
#3
The best place to learn about detecting cheats and the overall accuracy of the method you have in mind is in the Cheating Discussion Club at https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum
The public forums are not the place to discuss this issue.
inb4 lock
Ya.
lock?
topcop wrote:
I was thinking for example, if they have a good or high stnd rating and a very poor tactical rating and blitz rating then that might be a red flag that your opponent might be using computer assistance.
Or I don't like the Chess.com tactics trainer and I don't like blitz in general?
Those assumptions make no sense.
Jun 22, 2017
0
#8
Is there still in chess.com those bastards who forbid the opponent to castle by controlling the engine of the game?
LuisERE wrote:
Is there still in chess.com those bastards who forbid the opponent to castle by controlling the engine of the game?
Um... yeah...
Jun 22, 2017
0
#10
macer75 escribió:
LuisERE wrote:
Is there still in chess.com those bastards who forbid the opponent to castle by controlling the engine of the game?
Um... yeah...
SHAME ON YOU!!!!
Firstly, My advice would be to just not play that person anymore if you think they're cheating. There's no way to really know, so it's best just to assume not (I mean, there are cheaters out there, but I don't think that many--why play if you're going to cheat? No money or external reward in it). That said, I did deal with this recently and it was frustrating.
I had a previous profile, so have been on chess.com for a while, and never suspected anyone really and truly until recently. We played one game wherein he made terrible rookie mistakes and the game was over in under 10 moves. Next game, everything was spot on, every single move. His strategy was flawless almost! Finally I opened a chess app myself to see what moves it recommended for him (I didn't look to see for myself!) and sure enough, 95% of his moves were exactly as recommended. That's how I came to my conclusion. I sucked up the loss and then blocked the player and moved on.
I had a previous profile, so have been on chess.com for a while, and never suspected anyone really and truly until recently. We played one game wherein he made terrible rookie mistakes and the game was over in under 10 moves. Next game, everything was spot on, every single move. His strategy was flawless almost! Finally I opened a chess app myself to see what moves it recommended for him (I didn't look to see for myself!) and sure enough, 95% of his moves were exactly as recommended. That's how I came to my conclusion. I sucked up the loss and then blocked the player and moved on.
Oh I also looked at the guys daily rating over time to see if he had been on long--because if not, maybe he really was a better player than his rating or that first game would indicate, but not used to the format. Sure enough, he HAD been on chess.com for a while and was still that low rated, with a couple of flukes in which he did really well. . . Like really well, so that helped me come to the opinion he was a "sometimes cheater."
I agree with other posters that your proposed measurements for figuring it out are flawed. I never play blitz, for example, and am therefore pretty bad at this point if I try. Much better at daily chess. And some people take the tactics more or less seriously than others, so that score is not reflective necessarily of daily chess skills. I had an opponent I used to play all the time, and beat most the time, but his tactics rating was way higher than mine for some reason. Neither of us were cheaters.
I agree with other posters that your proposed measurements for figuring it out are flawed. I never play blitz, for example, and am therefore pretty bad at this point if I try. Much better at daily chess. And some people take the tactics more or less seriously than others, so that score is not reflective necessarily of daily chess skills. I had an opponent I used to play all the time, and beat most the time, but his tactics rating was way higher than mine for some reason. Neither of us were cheaters.
>No money or external reward in it
There's the "lol I troll u" factor. Ever heard of 4chan? People with no lives get off on "pwning" others even when they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
People who cheat like to laugh at "pwning noobs" even though - or perhaps especially because - they, themselves, aren't good at anything. They aren't demonstrating any skill but they still get perverse pleasure out of "winning". Yes, it's pathetic, but it goes on constantly.
I suppose so. I'm a hopeless humanist, despite so much evidence to the contrary. At any rate, since we can't really know, I think the best way is to assume it's not going on, and even if it is, hey maybe you might win despite them! Also, like I mentioned in my other comment, if you trust your intuition, just don't play the person again--cut your loss and block em. I wouldn't obsess over trying to catch em 🤷♀️ seems pointless
how is this NOT locked?
I thought these kinds of discussions were forbidden? also; when I play the computer matches me up with someone and I have only seconds to go before the game starts...
there wouldn't be time to check anyone's tactics ratings (or whatever).
so even if this is a serious idea- I don't think its a plausible one
Jun 22, 2017
0
#16
Block a guy who beats you when you have reason to believe he cheated. That was good advice,
Get then banned and they come back again soon, and you do not know who they are.
Ratings here are a sort of guide only. For clean playere they are more accurate.
Sandbagging also abounds.
@aurorawood has a preasp of what is required here to moderately enjoy oneself.
I'd like to avoid playing players using computer assistance. I am wondering if it would do any good to check a player's profile before beginning a game?
I was thinking for example, if they have a good or high stnd rating and a very poor tactical rating and blitz rating then that might be a red flag that your opponent might be using computer assistance.