Yes, he was overconfident and brash and people don't care for that. However, he was to me one of the ten funniest people that posted in the forums.
TOP 10
Sort:
To me the funniest comment in ouachita's profile was ""account closed for cheating'' waaaaaahaaaaahahahahahahahacheata!!!!!!
IF IT IS DEAD EASY TO CHECK WHY DOES CHESS.COM NOT ACT?
May 10, 2010
0
#25
supermidget wrote:
IF IT IS DEAD EASY TO CHECK WHY DOES CHESS.COM NOT ACT?
Normally there is a special board composed of computer experts and titled players who handle such situations. However, their decisions are also often biased. Also, if at live chess it is easier to spot a cheater (they make too few mistakes and too many awkward moves, etc.), then at correspondence it's much harder. For this reason in the official world correspondence games almost all people are using chess engines, no one forfeits players for that. It's just very hard to prove anything. Hostile websites ban a lot of people, including innocent ones. Chess.com is friendly, so they rarely do that.
I have the impression that I play against very few computers. I think the computer cheaters are rising well above the 2100 level.
Unless we are all going to start videoconferencing during our games, we will just have to live with the cheating. Maybe not even that might stop it. Hackers would hack that as well.
I've tentatively registered on this site, having played for several years on a main rival. There too there is heated talk from time to time about use of computers to cheat the way to a high rating. Personally I've only once been convinced that my opponent used a computer - my rating was 2000+ and his was 1600+; and he produced flawless and imaginative chess of a quality I'd never played against. But I was only guessing, and guessing from a position of bias; for he beat me and I lost a bucketful of rating points.
The real question is not whether people cheat - some do; the real question is not whether people reach high grades because they cheat - some do. The real question is how do we respond to possible cheating. I can think of few things more wasteful than getting wound up by suspicions. Cheats know they are cheating; you know you aren't cheating. And that's it! Cheats can be suspected but aren't easy to detect unless they are stupid cheats.
You are unlikely to play a lot of cheats, so the rating system functions as it ought - as a rough indicator of how you stand in comparison to your fellow players. It isn't accurate; it can't be made accurate.
Enjoy the game; and the craic. In online chess the craic is very important - certainly more important than rating, though less important than the struggle.
Fiveofswords wrote:
I think there are a lot of engines above the 2000-2100 level. Once you get close to that level its very, very hard to improve your rating without being stronger than any human imo lol. But what can you do, really? Its much mroe annoying for people who are strong enough that they can reach those levels without the help of engines becuase then for sure they will end up having to play a lot of computers, and computers are not fun to play. But you cant just ban everyone that you may be suspicious about, because a few might really be innocent. Sites that ban everyone they are mildly suspicious about I guaruntee end up banning a fair number of innocent people.
I'm not too far off 2000...I hope that I can make it there, and not have my accomplishment be thought less of because of my rating; I play my own games, not a computer.
well in silicon valley you only have ones and zero's therefore there can only be one number 1 cheater and the rest are zero's
this isn't the place for cheating discussions
May 21, 2010
0
#33
Well this is the reason i reset my account or stop playing on one because your rating gets too high =) It is not about cheating only, but also people r2400 and higher just put too much effort in database play or other tools and the game gets too nonhuman, the fun isn't there anymore.
algernonn wrote:
TwistedLogic wrote:
Well this is the reason i reset my account or stop playing on one because your rating gets too high =) It is not about cheating only, but also people r2400 and higher just put too much effort in database play or other tools and the game gets too nonhuman, the fun isn't there anymore.
Fascinating, isn't it? You're the first person I've ever seen to complain that his rating is too high. Ussually people complain that their rating is too low. What does it mean "put too much effort in database?" OTB players put a lot of effort in database but their play is human. They make mistakes, overlook simple wins, even blunder in opposite color bishops endings, as Anand against Topalov. So, how come their game is human while on chess.com it's not human, as you say?
Actually a lot of people wish they could have a lower rating (but the same playing strength!) so they may go into a tournament and win the class prize.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
... then at correspondence it's much harder. For this reason in the official world correspondence games almost all people are using chess engines, no one forfeits players for that. It's just very hard to prove anything. Hostile websites ban a lot of people, including innocent ones. Chess.com is friendly, so they rarely do that.
It's not difficult to find & remove the blatant engine users but it is time consuming, even with semi-automated batch analysis.
Engine matchup thresholds for human achievable play once sizeable games go out of database are both well-known & remarkably consistent, whether it be pre-computer era CC World Championship or modern OTB Super GM stats.
The cyborg database reasoning doesn't apply because
a) you're only allowed to refer to human vs human game databases on chess.com
and
b) all engine detection methodology uses multiple games & averages derived from these. The suspect & his/her various opponents would have to both conspire to play top engine choice moves in many games over time to skew results significantly if we're talking about 400+ non-database moves.
Add to this that a site such as chess.com might well use a +5% buffer on top of the threshold stats & anyone with results such as these could be classed as a blatant engine user.
Schachgeek wrote:
Kacparov wrote:
what's the site owner's rating?
About 1900, I believe. Which means you and I would be doomed if we played him.
?
May 22, 2010
0
#37
bobobbob wrote:
algernonn wrote:
TwistedLogic wrote:
Well this is the reason i reset my account or stop playing on one because your rating gets too high =) It is not about cheating only, but also people r2400 and higher just put too much effort in database play or other tools and the game gets too nonhuman, the fun isn't there anymore.
Fascinating, isn't it? You're the first person I've ever seen to complain that his rating is too high. Ussually people complain that their rating is too low. What does it mean "put too much effort in database?" OTB players put a lot of effort in database but their play is human. They make mistakes, overlook simple wins, even blunder in opposite color bishops endings, as Anand against Topalov. So, how come their game is human while on chess.com it's not human, as you say?
Actually a lot of people wish they could have a lower rating (but the same playing strength!) so they may go into a tournament and win the class prize.
What i basiclly mean to say is that "weaker" players have more time and resources then in otb conditions. Here they can compensate their weaknesses by thinking a lot longer about a problem, use databases or other tools, or cheat? to compensate this and for this reason they play a lot stronger when they would in a live game or otb game. This result in different kind of play you will see in otb games and yes i understand this turnbased play, but still...
Look for example to a few games a GM/IM played here, they lost a few games and that makes you wonder... How can he/she loose against some player without any comparable experience? It is imo very unlikly... unless the other player uses some kind of help or it is just not possible or very unlikly.
algernonn wrote:
...About engine matchup, there is much more to it. Modern CC players will achieve lower matchups because they know very well that it's not enough to just follow Rybka if you want to win. You see crazy openings like Hypo played a lot in CC games only because the engines cannot evaluate the resulting position correctly. Thus, besides engine matchup a better indicator is counting tactical errors.
Surprisingly I know of 2 titled players who have recently failed the matchup tests by slipping into the blatant engine use category, one amicably decided to stop playing at that site & the other is a FM who got banned!
Truth is, if a highly rated is playing an incredibly solid set of players (perhaps many rated 2500+ & some of these also cheating) then I should think the temptation to slip into the engine lines too often & over the limit of human achievable matchup rates is just far too tempting.
In fact part of the reason that I stopped doing analysis was this rather depressing "spiders web" of possible suspects generated from a single initial user's games, because the criteria for games selection steer you towards those opponents who also quite possibly cheat!
There is further evidence in that I know for a fact that plenty of batch matchup analysis of top 1 percentile chess.com CC players is going on & being submitted to staff & many highly-rateds are getting matchup results far in excess of the benchmarks.
I also accept that centaurs can never be caught if they only make the occasional engine move & this is no surprise at all.
Blundercheck is quite possibly a better method, but I'm not aware of the humanly possible benchmark stats for this technique. Are you?
I prefer otb, but correspondece has it's advantages.
Also, it is unlikely anyone can play 40 moves of non-opening without making one inaccuracy, mistake, or blunder.
paulgottlieb wrote:
I love correspondence chess. I play it, after all! But I don't think it's really quite the same game as OTB. To me, correspondence chess is more like research: I search the databases for similar games; I analyse as long as I like, moving the pieces around and taking back my mistakes. It's fun and I like it. In fact, it suits my personality much better than OTB, which is bloody combat. But I don't take my rating seriously in correspondence--or anyone elses.
Well by not taking a CC rating seriously, hopefully you simply mean that you don't think it necessarily translates into a good Live rating. Fine, I don't think anyone said it did. They're two different games. But by listing all the advantages of CC, you seem to be implying that it's easy, as if your opponents don't have the same conditions. This just seems pretty silly as it's a level playing field for everyone. If it was easy, everyone would have a high rating. I think it's absurd to say a CC rating is no indication of someones ability at chess and isn't deserving of any respect.
The problem wasn't ''people didn't like Ouachita"" the problem was ""Ouachita didn't like people but himself'' that's why his biggest mate was and probably still is called Rybka.