FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Whenever an opponent of mine (I play in the third German chess league) goes very often to the toilette, I ask myself "could he use a computer"? Obviously, it´s easy to remember the actual position, if you have a rating of above 2000!
Here at chess.com, the whole thing is different! Whenever I play against an opponent, who has (for example) a bullet rating of 1400 (mine is 2300), I ask myself "who the hell this guy can have a rating of 2100 at games with one day or more thinking time"...
The answer is- it´s not possible!!
I know, computer use is not allowed at this site...
Anyway, at tourneys with players who have an average rating of 2000 (here at chess.com), at least 50% use a comp! I am 100% sure...
Change the rules and you will see a very important thing:
Stronger players + comp beat weaker players + comp!!
In correspondant chess, the use of comps is allowed... Please change the rules! Allow "officially" the use of comps at a thinking time of one day or more!
Would be happy to get some thoughts..
I am German, by the way... No need to tell me, that there are faults in my English :-)
bullet is not online chess
So, it is not only possible, but reasonably likely that someone would have a 1400 bullet rating, yet play online or slower games at a 2000+ rating strength.
There are many possible explanations as to why this is so.
- they may be new to bullet, or recently switched from much slower games (bullet emphasizes tactics and avoiding blunders, 2000+ games are far more subtle)
- they may have serious lag issues (or arthritic fingers), so that averaging one second per move is problematic
ps. If they were using a computer, I'd expect their rating to be ~3000, not merely 2000.
I disagree about the "bullet is not online chess". Bullet is not chess at all, and unless your aim is seeing if your DSL line is fast and your mouse has good response times there's no reason to treat it like chess.
AFAIK computer usage is allowed only in the ICCF tournaments (which mostly are not free). And even there, they are rather unsure about the next day.
How are you even reading this without a computer? Cheater!
I am new to this site and chess generally and find correspondence chess the only form I can comfortably play, not because I cheat, but I actually need a lot of time to consider my moves, as I am rather impulsive and impatient by nature and the long wait allows me to curb these tendences and really evaluate what I'm going to do. (And is it considered cheating if I use an actual physical board and play out a couple of possible moves and responses before replying to my opponent?)
Ok, two things about this post:
a) Anyone who uses a computer will likely be caught by the chess.com staff. A great number of accounts have been deleted thus far.
b) Cheating discussion is not allowed in the main forums. I suggest that this be deleted and moved to either the cheating discussion forum or group.
The main thing with correspondence is that the whole game is a gray area, so you can either pretend like you can enforce bans for computer usage when you really can't or you can admit that computer usage is so rampant that you have to just give up and allow it (a la the ICCF). The thing is that a lot of people consult books packed with computer lines and use ICCF game databases for their openings, so regardless of the source the moves are often the same as computer moves anyway for as far as 30-40 moves in a theoretical bloodbath like the Noteboom, the Meran, or the Botvinnik Slavs. It's very hard to tell the difference between someone who's just well prepared with the right databases and books and someone who's blatantly using an engine - the typical t3 matchup tests don't work on correspondence, obviously, and it's impossible to draw a concrete line on what's allowed and what's not when so much of the research for chess is engine related in this day and age. Also keep in mind that any cheater will be careful about t3 and deliberately manipulate their moves to stay under the alarm thresholds while legitimate players who are using databases with correspondence games and openings books with long lines of forced play that has been calculated by engines will be the ones who unwittingly set off the alarm bells and get banned. It's hypocritical and bordering on ridiculous to claim that all cheaters will be "caught" when cheating can't even be clearly defined for correspondence, let alone prosecuted. Even funnier than all the t3 stuff is that I'm guessing 90% of 2200+ players on here use engines to blunder check all their moves and in critical positions, so that they never make any moves that are tactically unsound and they always know what to play at the critical moment without being possible to detect.
THIS IS NOT A "CHEATING DISCUSSION"!! And I thought about placing this post here...
A smart cheater is quite unlikely to be caught on correspondence games. IrrationalTiger already explained that almost perfectly.
The good thing is that a lot of cheaters aren't smart at all...
Thanks for your great comment!
I guess it was the US female champ who said bout Fischer that hes the strongest player in the world! He was asked bout her comment- he said... Yes, shes right, I am the strongest, but I doubt she is able to judge!
All said from my side :-)
A strong player knows, which positions are played best by a comp!
np your welcome !
Fischer also claimed that he can win against the female WC giving her knight odds. However, I doubt if he would survive today against Judit or Hou without giving any odds.
My bullet rating is now 300 below my turn-based rating - and the gap is widening. I don't use engines or databases. Perhaps I'm just rubbish at blitz - ie, my automatic responses are bad and I have a lot of bad habits to unlearn.
I don't mind if my opponents use engines - that's going to be reflected in their ratings. So, if I am playing, say an 1400 natural but who has an engine it is like I am playing (say) an 1800 natural, which is fine. I don't know the difference and don't need to.
If you want to play with engines in CC games, just start playing in ICCF tournaments. Be warned it can be very hard to climb the ratings ladder there, since provisional 1800s play as strong as the 2500s do (both using programs like rybka or houdini). It took me 5 years to climb from 1800 to 2300 on there, and the whole time none of the 2500s I played were any different in strength. Games are won or lost almost entirely by opening preparation there.
Alreday registered there...
Cause I have an Elo rating, I will start at an appropriate level (they said so)!
Stronger players tend to use their engine in a better way than bad players... Some variantions are already lost (in a higher sense)- like King´s Indian or obviously King´s Gambit!
Here are players who have +60/=0/-1... What shall I think?
Except that as I mentioned, rating has quite a bit less meaning on ICCF. Many of the 1800s I drew with are now 2400 and 2500 plus. They were simply new engine users and had the money/computing time to enter many dozens of tournaments. I only enter maybe 3 a year and that's why my rating climb was quite a bit slower.
I had planned on writing a book titled 'Modern Correspondence Chess' based on my experiences at ICCF and other sites. It would encompass the strategies involved with opening database construction, player profiling, and even stalling in lost or drawn games to make the next rating window before losing points. I'm going to wait until after the final round of the USA CC Championship, which I'm one of the 17 finalists in. There are some veteran heavy-hitting engine users there, so it will be an excellent proving ground for my book ideas.
Here are players who have +60/=0/-1... What shall I think?
I have +79/-0/=1.
That =1 was when by little daughter requested a draw by accident (the game was a clear pawn up for nothing). Factly I cheated: Three of these games were played by her, as I was rather bored by that time.
I was not using an engine, but rather the opponents were using an anti-engine (almost all of them low rated players, who challenge me for some reason, and I don't deny).
What should have I done, pretend that I don't see pieces flying out of the board after max. two moves? Factly, my current OTB FIDE rating is 200+ points higher than my chess.com one.
To make any assertions, you have to see the data first. What can you see there? Hmm... that it takes two to tango, and whenever one of them is lame, things can get really tough.
You said "In correspondant chess, the use of comps is allowed... Please change the rules! Allow "officially" the use of comps at a thinking time of one day or more!"
This is not entirely true. In the US, all domestic correspondence chess games are non-computer. In ICCF, and most other international correspondence games, computers are allowed. In each case, it is up to the organizers to allow computers or not. Canada recently changed their correspondence tournaments to allow computer engines.
You mentioned players who have a large difference in ratings when it comes to different time controls. I fail to understand why this should be issue. I've know chess players who were better at problems and studies than actually playing the game. And other players who were better at Siamese than a G/60 or even correspondence.
A personal note. I used to be better at blitz chess (G/5) in my younger days. Now age has taken some of the quickness in my fingers but I've developed more of a overall appreciation for the game. Blitz chess is for the younger crowd - lol!