Cheaters: Real or fake?

I think a lot of cheaters on chess.com are really just good tacticians.  If chess.com could post ratings of the players before the closing of cheaters, that would help me figure it out. Thanks!

This Thread: Real or Fake?

This may sound very harsh, but if someone cheats on this site, then in my candid view they are scum of the earth low life. I mean, go figure, what’s in it for a cheater? Like the moderators of this site state, they are “pathetic” and it’s a “hollow victory” at best.  But then again, there are people who write and send out malicious computer viruses for no real direct gain except perhaps the knowledge that they have potentially caused havoc.

I looked at the list of ‘cheaters’ and find it incredible that there are so many. I’m new to chess (wanting to play more regularly and learning tactics, etc now), but I have to wonder: Is the chess world really like this?!

I am wondering what if Magnus Carlsen secretly made an account here on chess.com and played, would he get banned for playing with computer-like precision? 

Agreed.  I think most people that get banned are really good tacticans that don't overlook tactics very much, but  I could be wrong!

People don't get banned for playing like carlsen, they get banned for playing like rybka.

Carlsen could play close-to Rybka moves, like Rybka's second best, causing confusion...

Agree

And good tacticians can sometimes play close-to-carlsen moves, like Ribka's third best, in four games, causing confusion, and the guy gets banned...  And maybe the chess world really is't like that, MefromCali.  I don't know. What does the rest of chess.com think?

Well, that is one example of a great tactician,  but only one.  There are so many cheaters on the cheaters page! Its so sad!  Are most of them only great tacticians, getting banned for nothing?

I suggest you guys join the cheating forum:

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

It's the only place where cheating should be discussed.

There you might also learn that banned cheaters here have higher engine match-up rates than Kasparov, Fischer, Carlen etc.

Strong humans do NOT play like strong engines.

I rather doubt that Carlsen would be found to be a cheater.   While he plays with precision he does not make computer like moves. He makes intelligent strategic moves which a computer would never see.

Very, very rarely does Carlsen play a red move. Almost all of his moves are like Houdini's, at least from the last two years of watching him play on Chessdom.

I should add that Karjakin, Anand, Kramnik, and Aronian, as well as most of the top players mostly play Houdini's 1st or 2nd move choice. 

Whoa, guys(and maybe some gals)! Read the comments, read the comments!

SECOND BEST of Ribka for Carlsen, not THE BEST!

THIRD BEST for strong humans, not THE BEST!
In other words, I partially agree with blake, that Carlsen doesn't make the BEST computer move, but close!

Go to the link, it's all about top 3 matchup

I don't know what you've been watching, but Chessdom has a Houdini engine on the right-hand side of the game window, and most of the very top players go the entire game making Houdini's first or second evaluated move. Game after game.

I should also add that Houdini's lines are much deeper than Carlsen can hope to imagine, or any human that is known of. These engines don't lack Carlsen's strategic depth at all.

I can't speak about Fischer or Kasparov, but Carlsen already has an amazing engine matchup rate. So does Kramnik, Karjakin, Anand, etc. Just go to Chessbomb/Chessdom and see for yourself:

 http://livechess.chessdom.com/site/

Here's Judit Polgar's win against Luke McShane just minutes ago. In this game, Judit played all of Houdini's first two choices except for move 20, While Luke had one red move at move 29, which is the move he lost the game on:

The moves of great tacticians will frequently be the same as those of strong  chess engines. It's my understanding that there are engines no grandmaster can defeat - I haven't followed the evolution of the software that closely.

The issue isn't whether there are large numbers players who are willing to cheat. The question should be what percentage of those banned for cheating have tactical abilities that are comparable to those of a chess engine.

The means to cheat are readily available. Taking the anonymous nature of internet activities into consideration, and given the fact that the only consequence is being banned from the site, not a financial penalty for example, I don't find it hard to believe that a sizable number of people would be willing to cheat.

On the other hand, given the high level of play that chess engines are capable of, what percentage of the chess playing public has the tactical ability to be mistaken for software? My opinion is that this percentage is extremely low. Given the fact that GM's have trouble dealing with these things, you'd need to be close to that level of play for your moves to correspond closely to those of an engine.