why do patzers delude themselves that non-patzers are cheats?
Sort:
I think Batgirl meant you could have done that as soon as you posted the thread, since that's when you realized you didn't like the title. :)
btw I sometimes get the feeling that those who call a cheat a 'cheater' have gone banananas ;)
'Cheat' and 'cheater' are both applicable. In this context they have the same definition.
I have been called a cheat many times on internet chess. Most of these were just because I had captured en passant or used a similar amount of time for a number of consecutive moves.
The most ridiculous case that I remember was being accused of using a program (on this site!) because I moved my King to h1 as a preparatory move (i.e. my King was facing no threats). My opponent believed that only a program would be able to come up with something like this. To him, us mere humans could only shoot in the dark and respond to immediate threats.
Chess is a gentleman's game, and I think it takes a certain level of maturity to play it. Some players may just be used to other sports where sportsmanship is not as integral. Others may simply be frustrated by the fact that you can easily spend 1000's of hours studying and playing chess and still be a patzer. It takes some maturity to not let this internal frustration affect your encounters.
silentfilmstar13 wrote: 'Cheat' and 'cheater' are both applicable. In this context they have the same definition.
How about 'cheaterer'? 'cheatererererer'? What is wrong with these terms? Why don't i find any non-stammererererer using them? 
Okay those terms are not in any dictionary I know of as of date, but words ARE born, right? The english language is not fixed. [shakespeare used 'porpentine' for 'porcupine' 13+ times, but is it marked as a mistake? No, it is marked [shakes.] ]
words coined by ordinary people in the last 10-25 years - emcee, l8r, lol, bling, ...
silentfilmstar13 wrote: I think Batgirl meant you could have done that as soon as you posted the thread, since that's when you realized you didn't like the title. :)
The truth is, soon as i realised it i dozed off - woke up to find myself wth chair overturned and me sprawled on the floor - and by the time i nerved myself - made and consumed a couple cups of tea, there were quite a few responses on the thread..
(I had been awake for 50+ hours when my body/mind shut off)
incredibly, no injuries whatsoever!
except that 'the moving finger had writ, and having writ moved on ...' [with apologies to fitzgerald/Khayyyam]
I find it hilarious when a 1200 rated player loses to a 2000+ rated player and thinks they are cheating. Where do they even get the nerve to make the accusation when they lose to someone who is obviously a better player than they are based on their rating alone? If they weren't a better player, they would have a lower rating. Most of these wiz kids probably aren't even a member of any chess federation and never played a real over the board game in a tournament setting or they would know how badly they would get their butts kicked if they tried playing someone higher rated in a real game. They figure if they lose, the other guy MUST be cheating. I'd like to see them call a tournament director over to their board after a loss or after their opponent made a particularly clever move and accuse them of cheating. They'd be laughed out of the place.
The problem with internet chess is that there IS a lot of cheating going on so people become very paranoid of others cheating. This leads to many silly and baseless accusations ofcourse. I started playing cyber chess in 1996 and have watched the problem grow only worse since I began. On some servers even GMs and other titled players have been caught cheating. Why would they cheat? Maybe they get tired of losing to 1700s or even players with no otb rating at all and so figure the only way they can beat the comp users out there is to fight fire with fire? I think this is a very real possibility and will only grow worse in the future. I have been crushed by very low rated players who couldnt even answer simple questions about the position. Needless to say I dont play them again.
Please excuse my ignorance but what is a patzer?
On the topic of cheating. I don't play the game for a social life and I don't consider the Internet a social life. Chess.com offers me the form of chess I've always wanted to play and I have found that I literally get addicted to it. I've never been interested in tournaments or chasing around town to find people to play. I have way too many other interests to put my time into that. I've been accused of cheating on other sites but not here. I never would, whats to be gained,it's just a game. I'm sure I have played others who were cheating but ,so what ,it's the problem of the game I'm trying to solve. It stings a bit but loosing always stings a bit. There are so many good ,honest players on this site that I don't play the same person twice and that really cuts down on the odds of being cheated.
I recently discovered what many have known that studying a specific opening can greatly improve your game. Duh. Therefore I have set myself the challenge of seeing if I can ever reach 2000 and this site provides me with enough good players for that challenge. My life doesn't depend on this and it's very good for the brain so if someone cheats me it's their loss not mine.
Patzer = Rat pez
oops... we are long past that thread aren't we.
Thank you Reb
Jun 12, 2008
0
#33
oginschile wrote:
Patzer = Rat pez
oops... we are long past that thread aren't we.
Patzer = EZ trap
You can always Wiki "patzer" if you don't know what it means. Wikipedia has dozens of nice and obscure Chess openings and Chess terminology. In case you don't feel like Wiki-ing:
Patzer
- A weak chess player, also referred to as a "fish", "woodpusher" or "duffer." (German: patzen, to bungle.)
Reb wrote: The problem with internet chess is that there IS a lot of cheating going on so people become very paranoid of others cheating. This leads to many silly and baseless accusations ofcourse. I started playing cyber chess in 1996 and have watched the problem grow only worse since I began. On some servers even GMs and other titled players have been caught cheating. Why would they cheat? Maybe they get tired of losing to 1700s or even players with no otb rating at all and so figure the only way they can beat the comp users out there is to fight fire with fire? I think this is a very real possibility and will only grow worse in the future. I have been crushed by very low rated players who couldnt even answer simple questions about the position. Needless to say I dont play them again.
I know you're a strong player Reb, but it's a common misunderstanding that high-rated players will know more about chess than low-rated players. The only difference between the two is their win-loss percentage.
Material is exactly even at the beginning of the game. A high-rated player doesn't start with any special advantage. The only thing that makes him better is that he should be able to have a better chance to win the game. Knowledge of the position doesn't help anyone unless they know what to do with the knowledge.
I think what Reb was referring to is when a player (in this case, probably a lower rated player) makes a particularly strong move or sequence of moves, but when asked about the position or these moves can not offer any kind of intelligent response as to what they were thinking or what the position calls for. Strong moves can be made by mistake, but ultra-correct handling of a position or situation shows deep understanding of the principles and concepts of the position.
In short... anyone can play the moves a computer tells them to play, but if you are smart enough to find the correct moves, you are going to be able to give some kind of reckoning of how you came up with those moves or how you played a position.
Jun 14, 2008
0
#37
Niven42 wrote: Reb wrote: The problem with internet chess is that there IS a lot of cheating going on so people become very paranoid of others cheating. This leads to many silly and baseless accusations ofcourse. I started playing cyber chess in 1996 and have watched the problem grow only worse since I began. On some servers even GMs and other titled players have been caught cheating. Why would they cheat? Maybe they get tired of losing to 1700s or even players with no otb rating at all and so figure the only way they can beat the comp users out there is to fight fire with fire? I think this is a very real possibility and will only grow worse in the future. I have been crushed by very low rated players who couldnt even answer simple questions about the position. Needless to say I dont play them again.
I know you're a strong player Reb, but it's a common misunderstanding that high-rated players will know more about chess than low-rated players. The only difference between the two is their win-loss percentage.
Material is exactly even at the beginning of the game. A high-rated player doesn't start with any special advantage. The only thing that makes him better is that he should be able to have a better chance to win the game. Knowledge of the position doesn't help anyone unless they know what to do with the knowledge.
Just a guess, but re Reb's point - legitimate GMs etc on chess servers may have an additional economic incentive to turn to the electronics when they know others are doing the same. Seriously talented players often have professional reputations to protect, which may frequently tie in with activities like the selling of coaching services - which is totally cool (chess i assume is a hard and crowded industry to make a living out of, and many may just want to give a little back to a game they presumably love), but it does seem a little unfair when the apparent quality of a GM's 'product' is undermined because they are continually losing to ppl who probably can't play (at that level) but can plug moves into a computer.
I am, however, speculating wildly and certainly don't think serious players are more likely to do this, just thinking about Reb's point re how a legitimately high ranked player might respond when faced continually with those who won't play the game properly (and the comment that some masters have actually been caught responding by doing the computer thing themselves). anyway, ultimately hopefully the problem will dissipate, i would think ppl would get a little bored of uploading computer moves (why not just play the computer urself at home). though perhaps there will be plenty to take their place, i guess ppl can just get on with it (or not).
Jul 14, 2008
0
#38
Something about the title next to the name makes it so that I have not yet been accused of being a cheat on Live Chess, whereas (god forbid) when I play on Yahoo! chess, it happens all the time.
fernandobtn wrote:
:(((((((((((((((( I`m a 1000 rated player, and I don`t even know what a patzer meens!!! :((( I`m glad someone compared chess to a musical instrument, couse I play the piano :D lol Well, I know how hard it is to master the piano, in oposition to how hard it is to master it, since I`m just now starting to understand what it means to master the piano. Taking the metafore further, the piano can be played by a machine with much more precision than by a man... that is, eletronic music has been gaining terrein for decades now. Still the coldness of a computer generated song is unmistekanly felt by any one who truly knows and enjoy music. The drums are an even better example, since the variety of touches a good drumer can do with his whirsts is as limitles as his emotions, wile the computer can only repeat the exact same sound when it`s ordered to. Well... Maybe that`s the key to honestly suspect of a cheater: they lack creativity, feeling and passion. Some of the games I`ve lost are the most beautyful I`ve seen, and there ya go. Please tell me it`s bullshit if you, top rated players desagree with me, but, is any computer generated game beatyfull? ANY??
The right chess engine with the right hardware is capable of thinking deep enough to perform "beautiful" combinations. In general they are driven by points, however, grubbing material where they can, and when they do execute a "beautiful" combination, it is not an original creation, but rather something referenced in a table that the program knows. So the answer is a yes with qualified no, lol...
