Ok
Every fool can win in blitz chess !
Sort:
Apr 18, 2015
0
#143
kleelof wrote:
jamelee88 wrote:
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?
No but honestly, when you see someone play a computer like move, or calculate so presicely without even thinking or using barely any time. You know they are an engine user.
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
jamelee88 wrote:
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?
No but honestly, when you see someone play a computer like move, or calculate so presicely without even thinking or using barely any time. You know they are an engine user.
Well, that's just silly because there really is no such thing as a 'computer move'. I run many of my games through an engine when I am done and the majority of them match the engines top moves. So, I guess, technically, they are computer moves?
On this thread I posted a challenge to detect the computer play in a game:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/beauty-by-player-rated-949
I challenge anyone who thinks they can tell by looking at a game if a computer was used to take a look at it.
It is on the second or third page of the thread.
Ballmorphy wrote:
The "posers" as we will call them, seem to make themself evident in blitz by something like this: taking 7 seconds for an extremely complex, perfectly-sound move, and then 7 seconds for a completely obvious one.
Yeah, this is how I play. I lose many blitz (5/0) games with great positions and no time on the clock. 
Apr 18, 2015
0
#146
kleelof wrote:
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
jamelee88 wrote:
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?
No but honestly, when you see someone play a computer like move, or calculate so presicely without even thinking or using barely any time. You know they are an engine user.
Well, that's just silly because there really is no such thing as a 'computer move'. I run many of my games through an engine when I am done and the majority of them match the engines top moves. So, I guess, technically, they are computer moves?
On this thread I posted a challenge to detect the computer play in a game:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/beauty-by-player-rated-949
I challenge anyone who thinks they can tell by looking at a game if a computer was used to take a look at it.
It is on the second or third page of the thread.
No, what I mean is a move even Carlsen would miss, a move a human would not even consider.
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
jamelee88 wrote:
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?
No but honestly, when you see someone play a computer like move, or calculate so presicely without even thinking or using barely any time. You know they are an engine user.
Well, that's just silly because there really is no such thing as a 'computer move'. I run many of my games through an engine when I am done and the majority of them match the engines top moves. So, I guess, technically, they are computer moves?
On this thread I posted a challenge to detect the computer play in a game:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/beauty-by-player-rated-949
I challenge anyone who thinks they can tell by looking at a game if a computer was used to take a look at it.
It is on the second or third page of the thread.
No, what I mean is a move even Carlsen would miss, a move a human would not even consider.
You might be interested in that thread I posted. There is talk about this too. Someone called a 'planless move' a sign of an engine user. But, of course, a low rated player is going to make many 'planless moves'.
As for 'a move even Carlsen would miss', there are an infinite number of moves on a board and an even more infinite () number of reasons for making moves. So it is likely you are going to see great moves made for the wrong reasons and these moves are going to be the same moves a computer makes.
Apr 18, 2015
0
#148
kleelof wrote:
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
EZXDragon wrote:
kleelof wrote:
jamelee88 wrote:
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?
No but honestly, when you see someone play a computer like move, or calculate so presicely without even thinking or using barely any time. You know they are an engine user.
Well, that's just silly because there really is no such thing as a 'computer move'. I run many of my games through an engine when I am done and the majority of them match the engines top moves. So, I guess, technically, they are computer moves?
On this thread I posted a challenge to detect the computer play in a game:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/beauty-by-player-rated-949
I challenge anyone who thinks they can tell by looking at a game if a computer was used to take a look at it.
It is on the second or third page of the thread.
No, what I mean is a move even Carlsen would miss, a move a human would not even consider.
You might be interested in that thread I posted. There is talk about this too. Someone called a 'planless move' a sign of an engine user. But, of course, a low rated player is going to make many 'planless moves'.
As for 'a move even Carlsen would miss', there are an infinite number of moves on a board and an even more infinite () number of reasons for making moves. So it is likely you are going to see great moves made for the wrong reasons and these moves are going to be the same moves a computer makes.
I think you know what i mean. 
EZXDragon wrote:
I think you know what i mean.
Unfortunately, I don't really.
This kind of talk sounds more like superstitious type of thinking; Seeing things that are not really there to justify a loss.
It's just not possible to look at one or 2 moves and determine an engine was used. And,unless the cheating is blantant, one can not even determine engine use in 1 single game.
This in no way means it doesn't happen, but it seems apparent there is a lot more accusing going on than there is actual cheating. ANd the accusations are usually based on silly ideas about computer vs. human play habits.
Ballmorphy wrote:
blitz makes them very easy to spot, haha. It takes them 8 seconds to make a complex middle game move and then 8 seconds to make a recapture that's an obvious auto-move.
Another example of superstitious thinking.
Ballmorphy wrote:
Kleelof, I am not superstitious, and my claim isn't a novelty, every good student knows that's one of the red flags. It Takes the poser the same amount of time for his extremely complex move as it does for an obvious auto-move recapture.
This is typical of the blitz player; no real thought involved. Just go with the first thing to come to mind, reasonable and realistic or not.
jamelee88 wrote:
Omega ask Hikaru or Danny rensch and they will tell you they could beat you 1200 games of blitz in a row without you getting a win .
Why would i do it? I'm sure of it without asking them.
It's actually quite easy to use an engine in blitz. That's why it is so hilarious when people say they play blitz because they think there are significantly fewer cheats. I'm pretty certain if it could be tracked that there are as many and probably more cheats in blitz than any other time control.
Some people are terribly misinformed.
BallMorphy, there are various types of engines & bots available which can be customized in terms of speed and level of moves as per the time control. Don't be surprised when a 1300 player finds a 9 moves long tactics including a rook sacrifice, which the opponent is forced to capture, to deliver a beautiful checkmate in a 3 mins game. Please try to understand that not everyone who can't play bullet chess but has a high standard rating is a cheater. That's not true. And, as kleelof pointed out, there are hundreds of cheats in every time control including 1 min games.
I always wanted staff to ban Computer Impossible but they don't do it. I believe it's a human which plays 5 RATED games at any given time, wins almost all of them and has the audacity to have computer image on the profile. This is blatant cheating.
kleelof wrote:
It's actually quite easy to use an engine in blitz. That's why it is so hilarious when people say they play blitz because they think there are significantly fewer cheats. I'm pretty certain if it could be tracked that there are as many and probably more cheats in blitz than any other time control.
3 or 5 minutes time controle is just enough for cheating, so I neither dont understand people who says there is not cheating at blitz ?
aerodarts wrote:
Tell that to those who were faced with playing blitz in a playoff! They would say it was real! I wonder what Nakamura would say if he read what you had to say about blitz. Ha ha...man on man. The more I played blitz games the better I got. Also, it makes it harder to use a chess program when playing online.
Yeah I see you are a very good (1500 at online chess). It seems you only play blitz, and I predict you will be soon 1100 if you continue so...
flakco wrote:
All blitz is is hurr durr attack and unsound sacrifices where my opponent will lose because he doesn't want to lose on time and doesn't achieve a defense or lose because he defended well but ran out of time. Truly the lowest form of chess, mainly because many of the people who play it are trash and rely on unsound garbage sacrifices and time wins.
you are absolutelly right !!!
there's a higher % of engine users there.
Do you have some stats to support this?