The Age of Abuse...thank you abusers for making me better!

A great mystery hath befallen me. Back in the days of yore I was rated 1830 at my highest and in general I averaged around 1740 (90 points lower). 

However I have noticed something with modern online chess, all my accounts were rated in the 1600-1800 area across several different chess websites a little more than half a decade ago; however, today, all of my accounts are now 1400-1600, and there are too many instances where a sub 1300 player plays extraordinarily fiercely and very accurate in any time control exceeding 3 minutes.

The result was to play 3/2/1 bullet chess; however, this kind of chess is pure garbage and I could never break 1500 and often blundered hard to relatively bad players and would take 12+ point loss. I didn't find this terrible chess to be very fun anyway so I returned to 10-30 minute chess.

Again I was confronted with 1100-1300 players on several sites playing fierce and accurate, so I decided to play unusual openings, Owen's Defense (...b6) and Hyperaccelerated Dragon (c5, g6) against e4, Anglo-Dutch (c4 f5) and the like, while playing Byrd's Opening (f4) EVERY game as white. I had used the Byrd's opening since I was a child all the way to 1700 (real life) before I started using standard openings and theory, and thus I know f4 inside out.

I couldn't help but notice that most of these low rated players played against f4, b6 and c5/b6 like experts, as if they encounter these openings every game they play and know all the theory perfectly...better than me...impossible.

More often than analysis with several engines would show players making the best moves possible for the first 8-12 moves and then playing on their own, often they would get in trouble (+/-3) when playing on their own and then all of sudden come back with perfect moves with the ferocity of Fischer and dynamism of Nakamura and straight up crush me in 10-15 moves.

If I'm not mistaken, playing unusual openings such as f4 and b6 and c5/g6  encouraged my opponents to use engines for the book openings, when they felt confortable they would play on their own, and lacking the theory behind the openings, would soon get in trouble again and resume cheating straight to the end.

So I went back to standard openings.  I noticed the inverse.  These players would trip up around move 8-12 since they playing on the own, use an engine to fix the mid-game and come back with a signifcant advantage and then go back to playing on their own and crush me.

Completely frustrated I decided it was time to examine whether or not I actually got worse at chess over the decades or if online chess is full of rampant cheaters (on all websites).  I went to several university chess clubs and I absolutely smashed every player...well then...maybe they're all bad. So I went to Times Square where some of the most elite chess hustlers and players can found at any time...I won and lost half the time, which was BETTER than the past where I only won very few times when "at my best."

Certainly all these people in Times Square didn't get worse too? Nay, I believe I've had so much training agianst engines and computers online that I've actually become better in real life, better than I ever was!

Thank you abusers and cheaters, you've brought out the best in me!

tl/dr version:  I just wanna whine about cheaters.

thanks for saving me some time. :)

Nah I'm thanking them. They definitely increased my real life rating above the 1833 mark from 2009

If you say so. *pat pat*

chess.com is good for training against engines, far more of them here, so better chance of getting to engine-like GM level in a few years. no need to whine to state a fact.

Yes, it is unusual how much theory even a 1000 rated player will bust out in any game, in any line.

 Partly, agree with Odin. It is fact among players that started when there were no good engines, say 15-20 years ago or more, that it has gotten a lot harder to maintain a high rating than it used to be....you have to play better chess just to stay "afloat" now. However, I don't know if this is just due to the fact that many more people study chess now, so the rating pool upon which one is compared to has gotten better. Used to be that only the better players were studying openings much, now it seems like everybody does, and most of us were just hobbyist playing for fun back then too.

Not every player who plays accurately in the beginning is cheating.

Some players are excellent in openings (because they spend a lot of time studying them, even the unusual lines), but tend to fall apart in unfamiliar middle-game positions.

@wanmokewan

Want me to smash you with knight/bishop checkmate in under 50 moves from the worst possible starting position, something most GM's don't even know how to do? I'll do it on a blitz setting of 2 minutes. I may not do it perfectly in 33 moves or less, but I will do it under 50. 

What inspired me to return to Times Square in order to rectify my self doubts was when a 1350ish player checkmated me in less than 33 moves with bishop-knight using the W...something only myself and a very select few actually know how to do...and we rarely get in perfect either and will screw up and 50-move draw in a real game if we don't practice the checkmate from at least three to four times a year against imperfect moves.

If you say so. *pat pat*. You can brag and taunt and insult me all you want.  I choose not to believe you.

Here's the link https://lichess.org/study/HcQLUyco

Titled under bishop knight checkmate.

It is funny to see that people who accuse other people using engines are always below 2000 players, although in fact people who use engines would have rating way above 2000+. And I played against 2000+ for thousands of games and I never ever suspect someone using engine in this site( yes I played for about 100 games in 10-30 mins time control against 2000+ players in my friend account as well). And also chess.com has cheat detecting system for 2000+ rated players. Waste of time to detect those <2000 games cos engines users are way likely to be 2000+, 2500+,3000+

No thanks.

I've been playing here for a number of years and I have an average rating of 1450. Many times I have been accused of using an engine when my games is razor sharp....I may be one of those who you think is an engine user...

chess.com says they havee the best cheating detection system, which i'm pretty sure is right

play here

A "very select few"? You undermine your credibility by claiming exclusivity in understanding a classic endgame drill

Yes, a very select few.  Most GM's can't perform it under time pressure if they haven't practiced it in a while, and some GM's don't even know it.

I used to teach this checkmate pattern as novelty and showoff with it at Stony Brook University Chess Club and at nearby Borders Books (before it closed). Most people couldn't do it a week later after I taught them, including some players who were higher rated than me.

I have a question, what percentage of the chess playerbase do you think knows how to perform a bishop-knight checkmate?  If it's less than 1%  I can claim exclusivity.

To have been murdered by low rated players with a bishop-knight checkmate in under 33 moves a grand total of four times in less than 1000 games (4 times in a 1000 games is pretty crazy, it's a very rare ending and even rarer for people to perform it at all and even rarer for them to do it under 33 moves by not making a single error) I can certainly claim that something is wrong. Also, I've never lost or even came across a bishop-knight endgame in 1/2/3 bullet chess...because no one would dare go there (except me!   ) in a bullet game, and I would only do it if I had at least 45 seconds remaining or knew I had have 45 seconds remaining after the exchanges leading to the end game. That being said I've only forced it once in bullet and against a King + Pawn and screwed up and had to draw. It's pretty damn rare in real games with real people.

However, an engine has no problem going into such an end-game and will plan for it 12-16 ply ahead in order to reach that solved position. Such unusual frequency of this end-game in my experience and deadly accuracy by the otherwise poorly playing and low rated opponent suggests way more engine use than one would expect.

Odins's one of those 'special' great players who 'know' when an engine is being used because he senses it. Then he goes on to beat it anyway. When he plays someone lower than his exalted level anyone who wins is considered to be using an engine.