Why would you or anyone want to ?
As I said, it wasn't a serious question.
Cheaters
Sort:
Jun 15, 2008
0
#22
kohai wrote: Sharukin wrote: Would it be cheating to deliberately seek out those who are trying to lose? Not a serious question, just wondering aloud really.
Cheating is only for the ones who have no self esteem so they get a rush making others think they are better than them at something, you know it isnt our fault you got locked in the basement and never made any friends or just were an outcast from the get in life. So put you engines away and use your head, you are only fooling yourself. What kind of gratification could come from a player saying wow you really creamed me good game, when the cheater knows he could've never played that well. He didnt win the programmers did. It is to boost the esteem they are sooooooo lacking. To the cheater's I hope one day you will realize self esteem only comes from true accomplishment, of your own hard work. Never from a programmer........well, maybe unless you are that programmer.
Jun 15, 2008
0
#24
Sharukin wrote: kohai wrote: Sharukin wrote: Would it be cheating to deliberately seek out those who are trying to lose? Not a serious question, just wondering aloud really.
Why would you or anyone want to ?
As I said, it wasn't a serious question.
i know :) but i was curious as to why anyone would want to seek out someone who purposely tries to lose a game. Apart from gaining points, there's no challenge, competition, etc there.
What I have been wondering about:
In football (or soccer for you USA folks ;)), if you shoot at the goal (but would have missed), and just at that moment a bird flies by and hits the ball, thus causing it to bounce in the goal, would it count?
I don't understand what the point is in cheating anyway. It's a hollow victory, artificially blows up your rating, you really don't get any recognition for doing it and finally you have to keep up the charade of being a good player or else be found out and labeled a cheater.
Not to mention you lose the cerebral benefits of actually playing some good chess
Jun 15, 2008
0
#27
If you cheat, you are not really "winning"...
So maybe you are in it just for the "points"...
Except that, knowing yourself that you are a cheater, points lose their intrinsic value as a measure of your skill...
So, perhaps you look at the entire system as a game - i.e. you are not trying to win at chess, but at chess.com? Maybe chess cheaters are like hackers who enjoy getting in and subverting systems just for its own sake?
Any cheaters want to comment? Am I onto something?
purpleknight wrote: on the otherhand there are people who are trying to lose as many games as pollible to get the lowest rating...a perverse tendency....you just waste your time signing on to play them...always check profile and online chess before playing someone....
i guess a lot of people wanna waste their time cuz i haven't challenged anyone in months and i accept less than half of the challenges i receive. some folks just wanna play the heavyweight champion of losing, it's not for the +1 ratings boost i'm quite sure.
9xave wrote: timmaylivinalie, I take it you like checkers and connectfour. Is that correct ? Are you better at those games than chess ? I assume that you are...
Why would you think that. ?????
Thanks, NObody commented on this forum for two weeks, then i got twenty-five comments overnight, Thanks again :):):)
i still believe champion is that cheating in such a game is self punishement ....there is no gain at all besides he loses all the fun and the learning ...whats left from correspondence chess if u dont learn and have fun??
Most players cheat to have an awing rating :(:(:(
New to this computer chess. I am here for fun. If someone wants to cheet, seems to me, it would ruin the fun for them. Anyhow they are the ones that have to worry about it.
Jun 15, 2008
0
#33
The people who ENJOY losing are a curious bunch indeed. Here's a thought - is it chemical?
For the most part humans are socially programmed to enjoy winning, and being a "winner" or "number one". Some, however, are not, veer from this path, or have their own not so socially accepted variation.
I personally was never into competetive sports as a kid. So I can't understand those who play, play, play rated games to rack up points and get as high up as they can. Unless it is part of the socialization process to have lengthy chats in a chess game, knowing that whether you win or lose the game doesn't matter - you have been rewarded intrinsically by the human connection.
Any thoughts on this?
Grim
----More caring and sharing on the next "Beavis and Butt-Head" ----
Grimreaper...
No one enjoys losing. Guys like timmylivinalie and Lenny_Bongcloud have merely re-framed what, to them, constitutes winning.
For Lenny it was attempting to get his King to the other side of the board. Timmay sees attaining a zero rating as an accomplishment. Both, I'm sure, psychologically enjoy their reevaluation of the rules of chess - rogues, or what have you, for whom the standard rules don't apply. They decide, rather than getting stressed about things like ratings, they're going to play a game of their own design.
So to them, it's not a loss at all. Perhaps by "conventional" standards it is, but not by theirs. Hehe.
I see that you, Grimreaper and Sharukin have been sending little "musings" Timmay's way. Hope this clarifies.
i don't enjoy losing persay it just happened to be the way to reach my goal of getting a zero rating. i am a competitive person i just chose a different path on this site. i was in a race to zero with a couple others - bongcloud and polgar0..bongcloud gave up when he saw he had no chance of catching me and polgar0 couldn't take the heat so i made him get the hell out the kitchen. the point i'm trying to make is that blood tastes like pennies.
Jun 15, 2008
0
#36
Thanks for the input Rael. Just out of curiosity Timmy, has anyone actually queried Eric or anyone else on the site to determine if it is possible to GET to a zero rating??? I'm just thinking statistics and win/loss averages. If everyone starts at 1200, if you lose every game you play, you lose "x" amount of points off your average. Do you find that the loss value (number like "-11" on the win/loss/draw calculation) increases more when the rating of your opponent is lower? For example, Timmy vs Lenny gives a higher loss of points as compared to Timmy vs any GM. The logic being, it would be tougher to beat a GM so the system is more forgiving and you lose less points?
If that is the case you should be challenging all the newbies. Solid losses against 1200 players...well...you probably already got that all figured out. I guess as a statistical study it may have some merit for entertainment value. And I do see the point made on how it really still is to be considered a competition. Clever, really, to see who can lose the most or fastest? Almost like an anti-tournament. LOL. I like that.
I don't think alot of people cheat.
I've never really bumped into cheaters here as I don't play chess much here. Every now and again I'll log onto playchess.com as a guest (not often though) and I've only bumped into a cheater once. I like what they do there--if there's someone using software they'll be kicked off and their rating will be reset.
The only place I play chess online much is on Clubhouse Games for the DS. There's no way to tell if someone's using chess software, but I've noticed people will disconnect when they're losing to protect their score. I've also played against a few people in the top 10 and they've disconnected right as the record of the game was being displayed, thereby hanging the game and forcing me to reconnect. I'm not sure if that was technically cheating or not, but it was certainly bad manners!!
I don't know why people would cheat at something like chess. It's not like you're a med student and you have to write a paper on Shakespeare or something that has nothing to do with what you want to do but is simply required. I don't condone that but I can understand it. But cheating at something you're trying to get good at as a hobby? To me that's simply not logical and those people are only harming themselves.
grimreaper1973 wrote:
Thanks for the input Rael. Just out of curiosity Timmy, has anyone actually queried Eric or anyone else on the site to determine if it is possible to GET to a zero rating??? I'm just thinking statistics and win/loss averages. If everyone starts at 1200, if you lose every game you play, you lose "x" amount of points off your average. Do you find that the loss value (number like "-11" on the win/loss/draw calculation) increases more when the rating of your opponent is lower? For example, Timmy vs Lenny gives a higher loss of points as compared to Timmy vs any GM. The logic being, it would be tougher to beat a GM so the system is more forgiving and you lose less points?
If that is the case you should be challenging all the newbies. Solid losses against 1200 players...well...you probably already got that all figured out. I guess as a statistical study it may have some merit for entertainment value. And I do see the point made on how it really still is to be considered a competition. Clever, really, to see who can lose the most or fastest? Almost like an anti-tournament. LOL. I like that.
i've actually achieved my goal of a zero rating as of two months ago? but to answer ur question, the lower my score was the fewer points i'd lose in a loss. eg. when rated 600 and i lost to someone rated 800 i'd drop 3 or 4 pts. however, if playing someone rated 1200+ i'd drop 1 point. once i got my rating to 200 i would only lose 1 rating point per loss, it didn't really matter what the opponents rating was. but if i'd played someone who was also rated 200 i'd have probably dropped 8 to 10 points per loss. unfortunately i didn't have that luxury as the 3 of us in the race would've only played as white and resignation on 4 would have been the only result..we all new that..so we didn't bother.
Rael wrote:
Grimreaper...
No one enjoys losing. Guys like timmylivinalie and Lenny_Bongcloud have merely re-framed what, to them, constitutes winning.
For Lenny it was attempting to get his King to the other side of the board. Timmay sees attaining a zero rating as an accomplishment. Both, I'm sure, psychologically enjoy their reevaluation of the rules of chess - rogues, or what have you, for whom the standard rules don't apply. They decide, rather than getting stressed about things like ratings, they're going to play a game of their own design.
So to them, it's not a loss at all. Perhaps by "conventional" standards it is, but not by theirs. Hehe.
I see that you, Grimreaper and Sharukin have been sending little "musings" Timmay's way. Hope this clarifies.
as per usual rael, you've hit the nail on the head 
One way to avoid cheaters is to look at the number of games lost if it is very low, then be suspicious about him/her, except the person is a FM or GM.
Thats not strictly true. Some players come here with a lot of chess experience but still have to start at 1200. So may win all of their games. Thats no valid reason to be suspicious of them.