Oh, I don't think you get to see the tactics trainer rating. Sorry.
Ratings:high,higher,highest!
Sort:
theunsjb wrote:
Where does one see an opponent's tactics trainer rating? I don't see the option on profile views. Just game statistics.
http://www.chess.com/tactics/players.html and then search for a name. It shows a 1400 rating for you for example.
I agree.
RyanGarner wrote:
You can click a box before you move on here, and can make illegal moves, I have never attempted it, but have noticed the box. That is probably the primary source of cheating.
Shh! Don't tell people about the "Enable Cheating" checkbox....
Oh well, the mods will get em'!
so......
should I use :
1. chessmaster 11
2. chessmaster 10
3. fritz chess 13
uhohspaghettio wrote:
3) There is really no such thing as an "NM title"
Dang, and I had my hopes up and everything!
I am able to beat 2200 level players OTB, but it is difficult to beat a 1700 player in rapid or blitz on here. I believe that people do cheat, even if minutely by checking an engine once and a while at critical points. People make excuses and convince themselves that they are learning from it. But what will happen when you visit a real tournament and you don't have your trusty engine next to you? Things will be entirely different. Studying computer play is not bad and analysizing your games with an engine is great, but relying on an engine does not aid in learning.
Sandbagging plays a big part in the cheating community...
Jul 9, 2012
0
#72
I agree that there are many untitled players who are inflated on this site. But let's not rule out the fact that many sub-Master level players are 2000+ at bullet and blitz. (I am one of them) If your true rating is 1800 USCF it is unlikely for you to be over 2100 bullet ( a few exceptions for very fast movers) and 2000+ blitz is usually characteristic of 2000+ USCF.
Markle's blitz of 1600 is common for a USCF 1800... He is talking about his "Online" rating highest of 2072 which is another story. Those ratings are more robust in range since great effort in Online chess by a 1800 can even cause titled players to stumble if they are careless in 3day a move time controls... I'd say blitz rating is chess.com's most accurate measure of your true otb rating. Some titled players are 1800s at blitz though because they are non-computer generation and slow thinkers.
PiFischer i was 2072 blitz a little bit ago but im only 1910 uscf. I have beaten experts though, so maybe im 2000+ strength
Jul 10, 2012
0
#74
Well Phelon, 1910 is close to 2000. Is easier for online rating to adjust to your strength than otb. Hard to play so many live tourneys to keep up. I'd say you are 2000 USCF class blitz player whatever that means...even if you really are 1900 USCF. You fit very well into my rating estimates. 1800 USCF <2100 blitz. Drop 110 USCF points and gain 28 blitz points and you will be a fast-moving exception!
Well I had been 1800 uscf, then I played in two tournaments at the beginning of the year lol.
SteveCollyer wrote:
thomaszwijsen2 wrote:
...I agree why don't you put that on the facebook page ! You must look really hard to find that rule. I agree if you play on chess.com where the experienced players are I should have known. As a facebook player I am only playing chess for fun and you can not automatically expect people to know thay...
I think it's fair to ask which banned account you formerly had, so we can gauge just how much 'fun' you had?
I don't understand why everyone assumes that you have to necessarily be caught to be a cheater, or rated really high. I am sure that Chess.com checks games of suspected cheaters ,for either exact matches of the particular choices engines make, compared to the move choices of the suspect, or they look for patterns, like key middle game or end game moves where suddenly the player is always managing to play well above their rating ( ex. 2450 somehow always manages a 3000+ move at key junctures).
I have considered that some people might be using multiple engines to cheat. If you used a different one each time and took a move or two off now and then, or even lose purposely, epsecially to only players rated above you, it would make it much harder to see any patterns. I think a bunch of this goes on and it is nearly impossible to police. I am sure they wouldn't want to admit that to anyone and have noticed they seem to suppress this type of thing so that not only their methods aren't exposed , but so that people don't get angry at their lack of control.
nameno1had wrote:
I don't understand why everyone assumes that you have to necessarily be caught to be a cheater, or rated really high. I am sure that Chess.com checks games of suspected cheaters ,for either exact matches of the particular choices engines make, compared to the move choices of the suspect, or they look for patterns, like key middle game or end game moves where suddenly the player is always managing to play well above their rating ( ex. 2450 somehow always manages a 3000+ move at key junctures).
I have considered that some people might be using multiple engines to cheat. If you used a different one each time and took a move or two off now and then, or even lose purposely, epsecially to only players rated above you, it would make it much harder to see any patterns. I think a bunch of this goes on and it is nearly impossible to police. I am sure they wouldn't want to admit that to anyone and have noticed they seem to suppress this type of thing so that not only their methods aren't exposed , but so that people don't get angry at their lack of control.
No, that's not how they do it - I could tell you how, but it's not allowed. I once speculated on the best algorithm to catch cheaters, and the thread was closed down very quickly. I must have hit a nerve...
Suffice to say that using multiple engines isn't going to make any difference. However, using one engine very carefully is.
i will never understand what makes the thrill to let a machine winning games for you...its like a ballmachine playing tennis for you 
cheating
Azukikuru wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't understand why everyone assumes that you have to necessarily be caught to be a cheater, or rated really high. I am sure that Chess.com checks games of suspected cheaters ,for either exact matches of the particular choices engines make, compared to the move choices of the suspect, or they look for patterns, like key middle game or end game moves where suddenly the player is always managing to play well above their rating ( ex. 2450 somehow always manages a 3000+ move at key junctures).
I have considered that some people might be using multiple engines to cheat. If you used a different one each time and took a move or two off now and then, or even lose purposely, epsecially to only players rated above you, it would make it much harder to see any patterns. I think a bunch of this goes on and it is nearly impossible to police. I am sure they wouldn't want to admit that to anyone and have noticed they seem to suppress this type of thing so that not only their methods aren't exposed , but so that people don't get angry at their lack of control.
No, that's not how they do it - I could tell you how, but it's not allowed. I once speculated on the best algorithm to catch cheaters, and the thread was closed down very quickly. I must have hit a nerve...
Suffice to say that using multiple engines isn't going to make any difference. However, using one engine very carefully is.
Why do you think it wouldn't make a difference using multiple engines?
This is why I say that it would:
Each engine uses a slightly different algorithm to determine it's ideal best move. If Chess.com checked a game's results move by move compared to, lets say, Houdini 2.0 first, since it is the best. A pattern would quickly emerge if the cheater used that engine. You could check engine by engine until you find a match, if there are any.
If a player used a different engine each time, only using a program designed to see an unusual jump in apparent skill level compared to normal would work. A program like I am describing would be very intricate (far more so than the best available engines themselves), expensive and maybe even needing updated if it checked for engine specific matches. I don't think Chess.com uses this method. If they did, not starting until a player gets a 2000+ rating, makes looking for any patterns much more difficult than at lower ratings.
Where does one see an opponent's tactics trainer rating? I don't see the option on profile views.
Just game statistics.