Sigh....What is this?

I lost two straight matches for no apparent reason, I wasn't even moving my peices and they were moving automatically, I went from 1300 to 1100, I actually know how to play chess. I play fair, but this was just cheap, I am not mad about this issue, but I just hope it gets fixed, I really want to play fair matches.

Hmm.... 

hacked?

It's a feature! Automatic moving...Saves you time and effort!

He said he didn't move his pieces.

Did he blink?

If you are using internet explorer it might be a new Microsoft feature: helping the users by moving and clicking the mouse for them 

That's what I meant - It saves you the trouble of even moving the pieces! What could be easier? (You're supposed to ignore any negative changes in ratings...that doesn't really matter...)

That's... the idea... of automatic.

But you still have to move it beforehand. OP claims he didn't move the pieces at all.

Pawns aren't pieces, so maybe he just moved his pawns?

(Rule of thumb, when speaking with Americans, expect sarcasm.)

Well that's what I mean, I didn't even move any peice and it moved it automatically, but I know what the automatic moving feature is, and I didn't use it. I think it was a glitch or something. I hate how there are glitches, and stuff like this. It seems that it is easier to play on the ipad/iphone than on the Laptop/computer.

Maybe you left your acount up on a public computer and someone thought it would be funny to move the peices for you.

Kasparov and I disagree.

So, after move 2 of the KGA, if you or Garry were playing Black, you would be up a piece while if I were playing Black, I would only be up a pawn ??

"Develop the minor pieces before the queen and rook, and move ne knight before any other piece (remember, pawns are not pieces), unless the position demands another aproach."    -"Pandolini's Chess Complete"

"An important distinction is that pawns are not pieces." -Maurice Ashley "Chess for Success"

"Pawns are not Pieces"   -Larry Evans

"Develop your chess pieces (pawns are not pieces) with EVERY move you make"   -Richard Eade, "Chess for Dummies"

and my favorite explanation:
"While pawns are chesspieces in the bag, pawns are not pieces when on the board.  That distinction, the term “piece”, is reserved for the members of the court on the back rank.  On the board of play, they are simply pawns."   -Press Elementary Chess Club

Obviously it's clear when people are referring exclusively to non-pawns.

They are pieces though, and Kasparov often referred to advanced pawns as attacking pieces.

Many people tend to differ.

Looking more deeply into this nomenclature, one can easily make a case that in referring to a pawn on the board as a piece , Kasparov or his translator are clearly, if not wrong, at least on unsteady ground and using the term "piece" quite loosely and inaccurately.  

Almost every instance since the beginning of the 19th century differentiates between pawns and pieces on the board. Nearly every writer specifies "pieces and pawns" or uses "men" to describe all the forces.

Tarrasch goes to length in several pages of "Das Schachspiel" to point out the differences. The 1987 English ed. states: "Though occasionally used loosely, the word 'piece' strictly is applied to only King, Queen, Rook, Bishop or Kinght.  A Player's men consist of pieces and pawns." (p.16) and "The Forces: These consist of pieces and pawns.  The pieces are much stronger. A minor piece is usualy considered as worth about three pawns. A pawn can be valued at three tempi." (p.219). There's nothing unclear or unambiguous in this.

Pawns are definitely not pieces during a game, but are sometimes incorrectly, carelessly or overly informally, called pieces.

Batgirl, A pawn can be valued at three tempi."? Are you serious? I thought it's just 1 and a half tempi. I would certainly have 3 tempi instead of a pawn.

Take my pawn and give 3 moves before you make a move, see if i can checkmate your King.