i love playing on chess.com...if someone cheats then in my opinion he cheats himself...when i lose i hope to gain from my mistakes
cheating more widespread in correspondence chess?
Sort:
cheating is more blatant on live, after all you have a bunch of threads on time cheating and those seconds in blitz matter way more than on correspondance
Time cheating doesn't exist.
I report any/all cheaters I play, it's not fair for someone to lose hard earned rating points to a cheater. I personally don't care about online ratings, but others do, that's why I report them.
Eseles wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
Given that computer assistance is permitted in correspondence chess on this site, what sort of cheating are we referring to?
It's not permitted here, that is cheating
Have you used computer assistance in games here?
No.
"You can NEVER use chess programs or engines (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, agreed upon unrated game, etc)."
What if you played an opening and forgot the name or forgot something when you made a move (unintended opening)? I was going to do a Ruy Lopez, but forgot to play Nf3. Went straight to Bb5 and learned it was a Portugese opening. I didn't take back or look forward for computer evaluated moves. I just looked up the name.
tigerprowl9 wrote:
"You can NEVER use chess programs or engines (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, agreed upon unrated game, etc)."
What if you played an opening and forgot the name or forgot something when you made a move (unintended opening)? I was going to do a Ruy Lopez, but forgot to play Nf3. Went straight to Bb5 and learned it was a Portugese opening. I didn't take back or look forward for computer evaluated moves. I just looked up the name.
nothing wrong with that, you didn't use an engine to evaluate the position or suggest moves. It's fine to use opening references, use game databases etc, just not engine analysis.
By the way, what happened to the "I am beating an IM let's discuss the game" bragging threat?
Scottrf wrote:
No wonder you're tigerprowl9 not tigerprowl1...
You were just #6 a few days ago. How did you get to #9 so quickly?
What?
@OP, there would be ample opportunity for cheating to occur with correspondence chess. It is one of the reasons why I am at times hesistant to accept challenges.
I'm 1400 USCF and I don't even have to think to know if the guy messed with the board.
galaxychess123 wrote:
I report any/all cheaters I play, it's not fair for someone to lose hard earned rating points to a cheater. I personally don't care about online ratings, but others do, that's why I report them.
HOw do you know they are cheating?
Giumikesch wrote:
Well, title says it all: I'm wondering if it's statistically proven that there's more cheating in correspondence chess then in live chess.
No, but you will find plenty of speculation on the subject.
kleelof wrote:
Giumikesch wrote:
Well, title says it all: I'm wondering if it's statistically proven that there's more cheating in correspondence chess then in live chess.
No, but you will find plenty of speculation on the subject.
Speculation = hearsay = no credibility?
If there's no statistical proof that sounds about right.
kleelof wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
No wonder you're tigerprowl9 not tigerprowl1...
You were just #6 a few days ago. How did you get to #9 so quickly?
A lot of tactics study 
Feb 24, 2015
0
#78
Jenium wrote:
By the way, what happened to the "I am beating an IM let's discuss the game" bragging threat?
All his threads disappeared. But he is still around, I´m playing against him in a tournament.
Maybe!!
If you play badly enough, no one accuses you of cheating.
It's really quite beautiful...