71 ( +1 | -1 )
Online chess and chess programs
Here at GK, I've often seen people complaining about some other players using computer. And I've a few questions about that:
1) How can you know one is using a computer to play in his stead?
2) What those people gain from using a computer? I mean besides a higher rating (which means nothing since they are cheating and THEY know it!): there are no prizes at the end...
3) How can you beat a computer? I mostly always lost against mine (CM9000 or Fritz 8). Even if I use a level adapted to mine, they play badly until the endgame and they get suddenly much stronger...
4) Donít misunderstood me, I'm totally against using chess programs here at GK, I'm just curious ;)
97 ( +1 | -1 )
1) I don't see how one could possibly tell whether your opponent is using a program or not...
2) The only thing to be gained is winning the game. Some people want to win so badly that they will do anything including using a program...
3) I never play against my program (Extreme Chess, Fritz 4.1) because I hate playing against machines, however I replay all my losses using its analysis function which I find endlessly fascinating. I've leanred alot about chess just by replaying my games in Extreme Chess...
4) You should be dead set against using chess prorams here at GK because it is illegal and dishonest and besides all that it is alittle bit pathetic don't you think...
The idea of playing chess here at GK for me is to improve my game. I'm sure some people are using programs here, human nature being what it is but their game will never improve and isn't that what its all about...
the way i see it anyway
32 ( +1 | -1 )
I fully agree that using chess programs here at GK is pathetic (beside DB, since it's allowed and might be usefull for expert CC players), it's why I don't understand people doing so... They win, but their wins have no value whatsoever, certainly they must see it, no?
Thank for your answers,
79 ( +1 | -1 )
Misunderstood 4th point
I misread your 4th point...As to why people use the programs?...I imagine they just want to win very badly. Chess can be a tough game. You can play flawlessly or at least very well, make one mistake against a strong player and lose the game. Some people I think can't endure this so they resort to chess programs...By the way it strikes me that Chess is a great way to develop discipline. It makes you come back and play again and try to improve your game. After awhile your technique improves and you might actually beat someone better than yourself because you have elevated the quality of your play. That can be very satisfying. Something that the program users will never experience...
42 ( +1 | -1 )
It made me think that maybe they mostly use programs to be sure not to make any mistakes, and so doing have the impression of being in control all over and to play themself. However, even in this situation they are not really playing as it is the compute that takes the 'difficult' decisions in their stead and they are just playing the 'easy' moves... Though it is just my opinion!
75 ( +1 | -1 )
Agree with everything and
I should add that there are at least 20 superb genuine players here who would whack any chess program any day IF they knew they were up against a program! I am no great chess player, but I once suspected someone for using a chess program.. I kept that in mind and played accordingly (knowing what kind of mistakes are typical of a machine)... my opponent had beaten pretty much everyone on this site ... at least 50 people he had beaten who are all much much stronger than me. Anyway, I busted him to a crushing victory in.. I think 25 moves or so.
So, an expert player (most of the top players here) could easily tell the difference between a "software move" and a "very good chess player's" move....
78 ( +1 | -1 )
it is best to just leave the computer users at that.. In fact, till sometime back I did not even mind when others were using programs or I suspected them or someone told me that such and such player was a chess engine. it hardly mattered to me until I realised that there are many who suspect that there are more than just a handful who do this cheating... Of course there is no way one can be sure.. so it is best to just leave them on their way.. or just ignore them!
I play some of my games much more seriously than some others.. As a matter of fact, I was once accused of cheating, at first I got really furious until someone told me that I should feel honoured, lol!
144 ( +1 | -1 )
I use only to review the game afterwards
For a review, Fritz is somewhat useful as it easily catches the blunders even in 5 seconds per move setting.
About letting the computer to play the chess instead of myself? Total joke to me. I don't want my Firtz enjoy all the thrills of playing a move not knowing that my opponent was waiting for the exact blunder. I've learned to enjoy defeat long ago when I was playing another board game, Go.
There could be some people even in GK using computers during the game. Just give them some time and most of them will grow out of it. I've suspected a couple of cheaters before, none of them are in GK any more. I got suspicious when I was beaten in my favorite opening lines and found no bluner at all from the other side. Just looking in the history of his games, I realized that since a specific point, he started not making any blunder at all against any opponents. As I don't mind about my rating as long as I can find similar strength/weakness opponents, it didn't matter much.
Some people may find cheating in chess more enjoyable than playing chess. I accept that as a fact, not what it should be. I think cheating could give me a little suspense and sinister joy of inflicting disappointment in others, but I love chess far more than that. However, I find myself downloading an MP3 not to listen but just enjoying the process that I can do it with my computer.
326 ( +1 | -1 )
Mary875 ... Once upon a time,
I had a cat named Tigger. I sat on the floor to watch tv while having steak dinner. Surprise, Tigger was soon there beside me and reached over to get his portion. And rudely awoke to find; he did not Have a portion! But he REALLY want one! So soon he is back beside me, having thought things over. I glance his way, and he looks back at me with the "HI, I Like You Face". ... and scootches a little closer.
Next thing, I see from the corner of my eye. There is the PAW just kind of hanging there suspended in the air. Which then starts to move Very, oh so Very, Very SLOWLY towards my plate. When he is about an inch from the prize, I say loudly "TIGGER!" Makes him jump-up, take a couple steps toward the door, then turns around to give me this look of openeyed surprise and indignation before shipping his tail up in the air and marching stiff legged away.
Tigger, being a cat, has vision largely tied towards motion. He made the mistake of of thinking I was a cat. And if he could just move slowly enough ... how would I have any inkling of his motives ? Why I wouldn't even see what was up until it was
fait accompli. (And like a Cat, gave no consideration to what might happen AFTER
that ! Nor anything but his goal, to have a piece of the meal.)
This is much like Chessplayers who who use computers to play. There are many, many Cats in the world who want a bite of dinner. And derive warm, fuzzy feelings of superiority from being oh so "clever", that no one "sees" them. So they believe.
As DYSFL_id suggested, many will tire of the meaningless pursuit soon. Have their bite of dinner, then leave, looking for more satisfying ways convince themselves that they really are OK, if not so Great. Or to the good fortune of us and them, may discover that one way to do so, is to actually start playing their own games, and BECOME Good, in reality.
Even an Expert player cannot be sure if someone is using a computer, for the most part. However, be assured that they CAN tell for sure Who is NOT using one. And going over a collection of someones games can tell very much more. EG's. To follow their growth within particular openings as they become more proficient in them. To see where in the game, and what type, errors are made. When a 2nd best move is chosen. When someone could just not resist the Human tendency to make a certain type of move to "see where it leads". And what TN's, improvements and creativity are there to be found.
And all that just can be noted just from an individual humans' effort and perceptions. But another thing such players, perhaps do not realize is: with computer assisted statistical compilation and comparison techniques, it Can be shown, if not "proven ina court of law", with an acceptible degree of accuracy and certainty, sufficient to a practical pursuit such as ridding a Chess site of blatant to middling cheaters. If this is of any interest to you, I encourage you to see my posting of today, in this forum, under Groove's thread, "Am I the only one". Which discusses the advent of the new Zebron Detection system, to address just such concerns. Sorry that I lack the skills to know how to repost it to here. But is there for the interested.
18 ( +1 | -1 )
PS. If you Skipped My Long Post
Above, it still might interest you to read the last paragraph of it. Which addresses you concern re Computer Use Cheating. Sorry so prolix, but can't edit when I'm tired. Craig A.C.
44 ( +1 | -1 )
5 m5 min blitz chess - impossible to cheat?
I think in 5 minute blitz chess it is impossible to cheat.
However, in a longer blitz game it may be possible. I once played a longer blitz game where I thought there might be cheating. Each move of the opponent, no matter how complex, took approximately the same time and soon there were some incredibly skilled pins and forks. I always give people the benefit of the doubt - but I wondered.
88 ( +1 | -1 )
5 minutes game
As far as I know then 3 minute blitz is widely recognized as a "anti-computer" time controll. A computer assisted player simply doesn't manage to switch between the two screens to gain some benefit. His time runs out before he has managed to clinch the win. Of course it works only against "computer assisted", not against computers programs that play automatically, thought the latter [mostly?] are indicated and you are aware that they are computer programs.
By the way, I have a question on some aspects of online blitz computer cheating.
1) Is it possible for a computer programm to automatically play online so that the playingzones administration doesn't know that it is a programm?
2) Does anyone know something about "time stealing"? Is it possible that some players use some sort os software to slower their time, or steal yours?
44 ( +1 | -1 )
I would just like to add that since I've been here playing at GK, I'm sure that I've never come up against a program user (one of the reasons I like the site). I use to play online at Yahoo where the situation is much different. I think the fact that the time controls here are much longer tend to atttact the more serious chess players...Not that I'm of them, but maybe someday...
55 ( +1 | -1 )
entry ranking for high ranking players by blitz c
I dont know the relationship between a good player's blitz and correspondence rating. I think it would probaly be a maximum of 200 points depending on the player. Perhaps a new player with a very high stated ranking (eg over 2000) should have the option of establishing their rating by challenging players in their range of rating to a number of 3 min blitz games. If they win then it has only taken 9 minutes to establish a rating whereby players of equivalent standard will challenge them/accept challenges.
48 ( +1 | -1 )
Between blitz (or OTB) and correspondence rating can easily be 700-800 points, or even more. In general blitz and correspondence are completely different, one cannot compare deep analysis in 10 days per move games to swindling in 3 minute games - let alone mouse racing for time wins :-)
As far as I know there has been cheating even in 1 minute games, via "direct link" to the site. However I am convinced compared to blitz sites cheating is not very common here at GK.
35 ( +1 | -1 )
I've entered a GK game into chessbase before and found my opponent's moves to be in complete agreement with the engine, but I remain agnostic about that (it was an open game). The wierd thing is that I doubt a good player ought to play like a computer; the latter's pawn play is demonstrably weak in closed games.
63 ( +1 | -1 )
Database or built-in min-engine?
If the moves were simply in the DATABASE, then it's rather natural for them to match (since many correspondence players both here and elsewhere use Chessbase). In a number of the games I've played here, the interesting "tension" in the opening is to see who leaves the database (book) first and whether the deviation turns out well or not. Sometimes it's me; sometimes it's my opponent. If you mean an engine or "mini-engine" attached to CB, then as you point out it would be more likely to turn up "odd" moves in a closed position than in an open one, since open positions are more susceptible to analysis by both humans and machines than closed ones.
48 ( +1 | -1 )
Are most players better at correspondence than blitz? Or is it highly variable?
Is a grandmaster's memory for blitz games as good as their memory for OTB games?
As the time limit for the blitz game decreases does the number of moves that can be planned ahead diminish? I guess that partly depends on whether the player sees potential move sequences as an instantaneous pattern or thinks through the moves sequentially (or other variations of thinking style)..
187 ( +1 | -1 )
"Are most players better at correspondence than blitz? Or is it highly variable?"
Well, of course most players find better moves when they have more time, access to opening books, possibility of analyzing with chessboard (moving pieces) etc.
But of course rules are the same for everyone. Yes I can play better chess here at GK than at ICC, but same applies to my opponents :-)
The question is who can (and will!) use the opportunities rules of correspondence chess give to all players? If you have 10 days for one move, how much time you actually spend analyzing the position on board? There are players who spend dozens of hours for one move, and there are players who move almost instantly. If you use 10 secs per move while your opponent uses 10 hours per move, chances are he willl have better rating than you have. Same applies to other opportunities, for example the ones given above. Also you have different players and personalities - some have great chess understanding and truckload of logic & patience for deep analysis, while some have exceptional speed of thought and brilliant tactical eye for spotting combinations quickly. Like good 100m runners are different from good marathon runners, good blitz players are different from good correspondence players. Yes in both cases some of the required skills are similar, but there are differences as well.
So, to answer your question - if we measure how good moves one plays, I suppose EVERYONE is better at correspondence than blitz :-) But since the rules of blitz and correspondence are different, such comparison is illogical. Therefore, since the only logical way to measure how "good" chess players are at correspondence is based on relativity (how good one is compared to others), your question leads to a kind of paradox - there can be no answer.
172 ( +1 | -1 )
Good points. Think I'd be inclined to agree with all, and onlly add the following: If you or anyone spends 10 sec per move and their opponent spends 10 hours per move; either "A" must be a VERY GOOD intuitive player, or "B" must be more than a little Nutsy! Which is not to say a bad Chessplayer. Maybe WC some day with THAT kind of obsession with the game! Or very, very, very bored! (in which case, come to my house and we'll stack Chess Pieces [8-D---For those too youthful to remember, or too full of vitality to notice; there was once a Chess Life Article on the subject. No Kidding )
I believe Chess thinking is similarly diverse as 'IQ Thinking', if I may create the phrase. There are those with great "Torque" who might solve any question, given 2 lifetimes to do it, but are not as quick on the draw. (And perhaps unlimited tech resources, prn) Others who cannot solve above a "7 or 8" on a 1 to 10 degree of difficulty, but are like lightning up to that point.
If you really "tune-in" when you are playing OTB at a reasonable Time Control, you can actually get a feel for what type of "thinker" you are facing. Even how deeply someone is analyzing against you. Needless to say, this can be helpful in defeating them. Like knowing the length of a computer's "horizon" would be.
"Torquers" tend to like complex positions and Time Out more I think. Tend to suffer rating decline from 2076 to their 1800 "floor" more, just from deciding to go ahead and enter "sudden death" events. [8-)
PS. Watch their eyes! Especially in time scrambles. Tal Was Not trying to psych-out
And never forget, some players scratch their nose(s) when considering center pawn
20 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't want you banned !
So just in case anyone is feeling low impulse control at the moment, even be it a reasonable, rational, "needs to be said" kiinda impulse... Yes, I may be more than a little nutsy. [Yet will NEVER be WC...!] 8-(
19 ( +1 | -1 )
"I've entered a GK game into chessbase before and found my opponent's moves to be in complete agreement with the engine..."
So how could I possibly mean "database" by the above statement?
65 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l Thanks for your answer
I was particularly interested in your example of players and personalities. But it raises a number of questions.
On some sites many different types of chess can be played, yet there is only one rating. This could be seen as an implicit comparison. If the different types of chess cannot be compared then why does a player not have a rating specific for each type of chess? I'm asking this as a general question - it is not about a specific site.
Can a correspondence skill weakness, especially beginner weaknesses be strengthened by playing a particular variety of chess? Especially for people who prefer to learn from experience rather than books.
85 ( +1 | -1 )
"On some sites many different types of chess can be played, yet there is only one rating. This could be seen as an implicit comparison. If the different types of chess cannot be compared then why does a player not have a rating specific for each type of chess? I'm asking this as a general question - it is not about a specific site."
I suppose it is merely a question of simplicity - obviously having specific ratings for different types of chess (standard, blitz, correrspondence...) is more accurate in terms of measuring playing strength.
BTW you can also ask why most chess sites (especially the best ones!) DO have specific rating for different types of chess...
"Can a correspondence skill weakness, especially beginner weaknesses be strengthened by playing a particular variety of chess?"
IMO yes - they can be strenghtened by playing correspondence chess! :-)