Are you using correspondence chess to learn or to increase your imaginary number? Some people cheat. Report them. Move on. Do you think successful people get stuck whining about the losers they encounter who wasted their time? No, they don't waste one second on an unproductive activity like that. Stop wasting your time posting this crap and get back to working hard at improving.
Frustration with Turn-Based Games
Sort:
Milliern wrote:
I've been trying to play turn-based games to better my slow play, and to take a decent amount of time to think about each position, but I think a lot of people might be cheating in turn-based play. I don't think all of the games I am losing are games in which people cheated, but I have played two people, in particular, who seem to consistently make devastating moves against me, and play very accurately. I examined one game afterward with my coach, a GM, and he said, "well, that was a waste of time. Ahhhhhh, I usually don't claim people are cheating, but given his USCF rating, this person played super strong." One of these players, plays very different quality games against me than against other opponents. This person has a blitz rating under 1400 on chess.com, a TT rating hundreds of point lower than mine, a USCF rating hundreds of points lower than mine, yet this person is working me (in particular) over like I am a complete bum.
This has me sitting here and thinking, wow, is there even a reason to play turn-based games on chess.com? I mean, the only people chess.com will say are cheating are people who consistently use computers (every move in a game or multiple games), so what is the point? I can beat Fritz set on 2000 and 2100, but I can't beat a USCF player rated under 1300 on chess.com's turn-based play. If I weren't so dedicated to imporving my game (and not wasting time!!!), I would retaliate. It's no wonder the ratings on here are so screwed up.
Is this basically the same experience that others are having?
Actually people are allowed to use help on turn base games. From my understanding They can use chess databases, analysis boards, and several other options during the opening phase of the game. An some opens can go 20 moves deep.
I personally do not like that feature chess.com has. I like my opponents to rely only on themselves. Which is why I do not play turn base games at all on chess.com. I believe playing live games with longer time controls is the way to go.
Maybe 30 min games or you can even adjust the time to 2 hour to try and resemble more OTB conditions.
I know some people who have said having 2+ hour time controls and using the 3D pieces setting can come close to resemble OTB conditions. Obviously OTB chess is much more in person etc. So you can't resemble it 100% but you can come close to doing that. I believe it could help you as well.
richb8888 wrote:
Stop crying you got beat-the vast majority do not cheat and even medivcre players can have great game good moves every now and then
1. No one was "crying"
2. A chess.com member wishes to express his Frustration
3. Discussing cheating is a valid concern
I_Am_Second wrote:
richb8888 wrote:
Stop crying you got beat-the vast majority do not cheat and even medivcre players can have great game good moves every now and then
1. No one was "crying"
2. A chess.com member wishes to express his Frustration
3. Discussing cheating is a valid concern
Thanks.
I cannot imagine how big someones ego is if the only explanation they can think of when getting beaten is "this person must be cheating". Truly an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics. Unbelieveable.
For the record I am probably one of those people who you would have deemed a cheater, since almost all of my ratings are lower than yours except in online. Has it ever occured to you that the point of online chess is to spend a lot of time on each move and that you made this impossible by running 39 games at the same time?
Harmbtn wrote:
I cannot imagine how big someones ego is if the only explanation they can think of when getting beaten is "this person must be cheating". Truly an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics. Unbelieveable.
For the record I am probably one of those people who you would have deemed a cheater, since almost all of my ratings are lower than yours except in online. Has it ever occured to you that the point of online chess is to spend a lot of time on each move and that you made this impossible by running 39 games at the same time?
May 22, 2015
0
#28
kleelof a écrit :
It is certain the chance of cheaters is low enough that you might consider not worrying about them.
Even in a game where your opponent cheated, you can learn something.
You gain far more than they do.
Exact, also a cheater will soon or later have a rate higher than his real play. So it's like if you sometimes play against a computer, it's a good practice.
OhLand wrote:
kleelof a écrit :
It is certain the chance of cheaters is low enough that you might consider not worrying about them.
Even in a game where your opponent cheated, you can learn something.
You gain far more than they do.
So it's like if you sometimes play against a computer, it's a good practice.
This is the perspective I've taken recently. The advantage that playing chess.com's turn-based has is that the programs will make random blunders that are not typical of class play (Chessmaster, especially). I think the thing I'm really having to get over is wanting to use chess.com's turn-based game ratings as a metric to show whether I'm getting better or not. That's really the heart of my complaint, I guess, not even the cheating or selective cheating; I just want consistent play out of opponents with a particular rating.
They probably arent cheating(not with an engine). I recently got into correspondence chess after decades of only playing OTB and blitz style games. I quickly noticed that there is ZERO 'rhythm' to the game. It's like the difference in a jump shot and a free throw(in basketball).
So, I then began to notice that some of the players who only play this style, were ridiculously skilled at long term calculation(vs finding a quick rhythm and going for the kill). Correspondence chess is a WHOLE OTHER type of chess game. I figure I need to learn how to calculate better(long term) in chess.
BigKingBud wrote:
So, I then began to notice that some of the players who only play this style, were ridiculously skilled at long term calculation(vs finding a quick rhythm and going for the kill). Correspondence chess is a WHOLE OTHER type of chess game. I figure I need to learn how to calculate better(long term) in chess.
Yes, this excactly.
My online rating is pretty much the same as the OP, so that means if cheating is really as rampant as he says it is then I would experience it as well. I can almost guarantee there is no cheating in his games, just someone who cannot accept his losses with some grace.
It's for this reason (and the time it takes) that I'm winding down correspondence. I suggest you go to the Slow Live Chess Association and the Dan Heisman Learning Centre. You can get games (45+45 and 90+30) against a variety of opponents. Not sure what you otb rating is, but there are several decent players, and I've found 90 30 to be mostly clean.
My post is in reference to the OP
CP6033 wrote:
It's for this reason (and the time it takes) that I'm winding down correspondence. I suggest you go to the Slow Live Chess Association and the Dan Heisman Learning Centre. You can get games (45+45 and 90+30) against a variety of opponents. Not sure what you otb rating is, but there are several decent players, and I've found 90 30 to be mostly clean.
Quality suggestion, friend. Thanks.
I will admit to needing, and need to use more time, in the turn based scenario. Maybe I can do speed chess again, but, working 60+ hours a week leaves me precious little time and energy to play (I drive at night and play some of my best chess at 4AMish when I get back home before catching some very needed sleep - but I'm pumped). If I get in a hurry I play like a 1000 player. I have taken out a close to 2000 player, sweating bullets with every move - I consider that a out of almost all probability win but it happened - I still haven't gotten recognition for it even though I specifically brought it to chess.com's attention (they still show my highest win at 1864). I didn't know it was acceptable or didn't even consider using a "friend" electronic or otherwise. Cheating - I guess if the rules allow it, how can it be. Maybe I've been taken out by a few good pieces of software, who knows - who cares! I keep getting better and that's whats important. I had an opponent that was intially insulted that I tried to stalemate them - they were angry that I wouldn't resign and I tipped my hand by letting them know what I was trying to do just to educate them that "tactics training" actually considers it a high level end game stopper. I'm having fun, hope you are too!
CP6033 wrote:
It's for this reason (and the time it takes) that I'm winding down correspondence. I suggest you go to the Slow Live Chess Association and the Dan Heisman Learning Centre. You can get games (45+45 and 90+30) against a variety of opponents. Not sure what you otb rating is, but there are several decent players, and I've found 90 30 to be mostly clean.
This does sound like a good idea. I've tried playing 45 | 45 over the past week from the main menu, but it has problems - many times there's no one there, often I encounter a brand new player, which is an easy five points, but not very satisfying! Also I often find players come out playing at blitz speed, hang a piece, and then play really slow (in a huff...), as I slowly take them down... also not very satisfying... Maybe a better game can be found in these groups!
How long do 45/45 games usually take?
Hour and a half to two hours. Sometimes 2.5 hours, but rarely longer than that.
May 27, 2015
0
#39
rtr1129 wrote:
How long do 45/45 games usually take?
Assume it can take up to 3 hours. It will probably be done before then but can potentially even take longer.
Stop crying you got beat-the vast majority do not cheat and even medivcre players can have great game good moves every now and then