OK I'm jumping in for my 2 cents worth on the cheating issue. Sure there are cheaters here. They are despicable individuals but as in life it's best to focus on ones own integrity.
I did find it ironic that about 40 of the top rated players on this site are rated over 2500 and only a few (5?) are titled with only one titled player in the top 20. What does that say about all the others? Can we believe they are all GM's just playing anonymously? Hummm.....
its easy to cheat online,of course it happens, i wouldn,t get worked up about it.
I think people who accept this are crazy... "you will always find people cheating so then its ok??" NO WAY.. I have repported 3 people who also have a great rating but they have win unbelivebly many games on just 3-8 moves and the other part just gave up... It make me feel kind of sorry for these poor loosers who have to cheat to feed theyre ego.. This is a noble game and thats it... Chess.com said they would check these people out but they are still here after months with cheating... And I think that the message you wrote was great.. Its to many who dont give a shitt, but hey... thats the world right... Anyway to all your cheaters.... it only reflect who you are in real life as well.. think about that
Cheating may be very common, but once suspected, why can't one just stop playing that person? Tournaments are a different issue, and I would like to see tournaments in the live mode. I know it will be a hassle for players to set up a proper time for both, but I think that it would be possible. How does this sound?
Rael, you went for alt-F4? What's that, alternative birds? Surely that is cheating then ;-)
I have never understood why people use chess engines in games, because I've always thought it must be a pretty hollow victory when you win, but in reading this thread I think I now see it - what you are saying is that the combination of human plus machine raises the game to another level of perfection - a bit like a work of art. Is this right? If so, I think I get it now. If not then I'm still in the dark.
Unlike some people, I do care about my rating and treat it as a measure of my improvement. I know there must be cheaters on the site, but if I don't know about it then it doesn't really matter to me, because their rating will reflect that computer's strength and won't really impact my rating - if I lose to a 2500 human it will be the same as losing to a 2500 machine and I'll have learned as much from playing either. As it happens, I normally hate playing computers so don't even own a chess program, but if I don't know I'm playing one I can live in blissful ignorance!
Cheating may be very common, but once suspected, why can't one just stop playing that person? Tournaments are a different issue, and I would like to see tournaments in the live mode. I know it will be a hassle for players to set up a proper time for both, but I think that it would be possible. How does this sound?
that's actually not a bad addition to live chess. live tournaments. i'm assuming you'd just have to have a schedule of games set up for a tournament and if a player doesn't show then they lose (or time-out/lose). sounds like it would be pretty fun.
I believe that It's weighted by the number of recent games you have had. The assumption being that if you've had a lot, your rating is likely accurate, but if you've had few, your rating may well be inaccurate and should probably be adjusted more.
The line of thought started by eastendboy and clarified by stwils bears looking into, in my opinion. That is, chess.com to start a new division, for players who want to use engines in their games. This way the site won't lose good players in their own right who want to incorporate the tactical advantages of programmes to have a better all-round game, as explained by eastendboy. These players can play each other in chess.com tournaments specially organised for them and in games among themselves, as suggested by stwils, and still remain members of chess.com. But in tournaments and games with non-programme users like myself and I think the majority here, the rule against use of engines should continue to be strictly enforced.
But how to tell who wants to use engines and who doesn't? At least two people have honestly admitted they use engines. Perhaps some of the others who do, won't mind "owning up" likewise if they are assured that they won't lose their membership and that they still have a place and usefulness here. Maybe chess.com can add an extra icon after their names to denote "engine user" so that those who don't want to play against people using programmes can avoid them, while those who don't mind, can proceed to do so.
At the end of the day, however, it all boils down to honesty. There are people who are honest but there is always that small group of people who are not, and will never admit to using programmes to gain an advantage over their opponent. This is a fact of life true not just here but everywhere else, not just in chess but in everything else. And not all the reporting of cheating nor all the monitoring against cheating will ever completely root out this kind of people. We will all just have to live with it.
Meanwhile however, chess.com would have an extra dimension to its already impressive array of features offered at the site. This may, who knows, attract the new breed of man-machine players out there that eastendboy was talking about. And who is to say this might not be the way chess will end up eventually? While the principles of the game itself remain constant, the intricacies of playing it are constantly evolving, with new openings, new variations, new ways of attack and counter-attack, gambits and counter-gambits having surfaced over all these years. Are we already seeing the shape of things to come, the Third or even Fourth Millennium Chess?
A short reply:
1. I am talking about live chess, especially longer times control, let's say >5 mins.
2. I don't have charts comparing ICC with chess.com. All I know is that I was 1900-2100 on ICC standard (look up cotoi1) and on chess.com I am only 1600. And on ICC even players rated >2000 did make huge mistakes in long time controls (>15 mins)
3. The computer matching of unforced moves for world champions is about 40-50%. So, if a matching >80% (and a total match of 92% for all the moves, not only those unforced) for an amateur player who does not even have an ELO is not cheating, then nothing is cheating. Anyway, I simply cannot play with such good players, they will beat me consistently 1000 times in a row. Read more here if you are interested: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/Elista2006.html
A short reply:
1. I am talking about live chess, especially longer times control, let's say >5 mins.
2. I don't have charts comparing ICC with chess.com. All I know is that I was 1900-2100 on ICC standard (look up cotoi1) and on chess.com I am only 1600. And on ICC even players rated >2000 did make huge mistakes in long time controls (>15 mins)
All I'm saying is that correspondence chess is different than OTB style chess so it is hard to compare ratings from ICC to here since a different type of chess is being played. In fact, it is well known that many grandmasters do not fair very well in the correspondence arena, and performance levels fluctuate greatly for average players. I know a lot of players who do a lot worse at correspondence chess and others that do much better at it then OTB... etc. Also, the rating systems are very different here than at ICC. Here they use the glicko system while at ICC they use the elo system. In addition, the ratings start at a base of 1400 there while here they start at 1200 which gives you a 200 point inflation there right off the bat. I think if you take all of this into account you'll see why I'm saying that you really cannot compare the two since they are 2 different forms of chess with different rating systems starting at two different rating bases.
3. The computer matching of unforced moves for world champions is about 40-50%. So, if a matching >80% (and a total match of 92% for all the moves, not only those unforced) for an amateur player who does not even have an ELO is not cheating, then nothing is cheating. Anyway, I simply cannot play with such good players, they will beat me consistently 1000 times in a row. Read more here if you are interested: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/Elista2006.html
Well given the large amount of tools at a correspondence player's disposal it wouldn't surprise me at all if an "average" OTB player had great accuracy in a correspondence game when he has all the time in the world to calculate and analyze a position. Costelus I see you've played 24 games so far, out of curiosity how many of your opponents do you suspect of cheating, if any?
i really dont care if my opponent is using another program to support him. As long his moves are the best and I can learn from it, apply it on actual table games I think it is ok. It is his lost not mind. he may win the game but i will become better.
Haha, sily me, that's just wishful thinking, like a world without war or spousal abuse!
... or a world without sarcasm...
Trigs know what you mean.
Should really worry about own game as you could get distracted.
Rael, there are times when you come across as funny, but there are times when you come across as nasty.
cheating is fun for everyone!
Even lacking a convincing control mechanism, I think proactive sites like chess.com that take swift action against cheaters will reduce the number of cheaters here and make it more attractive to more users, who prefer to play people. (People who prefer to play computers do not need a chess site.)
As for Nilesh's comment, I think it would be great if chess.com forums had a "Thumbs-down" button like YouTube.com, so that if enough of us clicked it, the comment would disappear.
What s the point of cheating?????
I just can t find a single reason to enjoy cheating to get the highest rating. Poor cheaters!!! I do feel pity for them.
Best regards
Love that post, Much Afraid! Abusers claiming to be as good as Kasparov, with a little scientific help. Not including/realising that 1.He was talented. 2.A genius. 3.Worked all day for several years. 4.Was guided by great capacities. 5.Playing the best. And so on. Claiming to be near that level, living normal lives with jobs, families and 30 ongoing games and not fulfilling all of the above mentioned, is a complete joke!