What is your chess rating? Fav opening? Wanna play?

I'm constantly reminded there is a whole world around me that i don't know. I do have a question.

What is the motive for a person to cheat at chess online?

It appears you guys are true students of the game, referencing masters and watching a championship (real life.) I'm guessing, from your comments, the frustration comes from people ruining your development. (No purse or monies involved.)

I can't, even with magic algos, wrap my head around the idea that it can be determined that you played 96% correctly.

What does that mean?

How is that determined?
 
Cheating can provide a false sense of control and dominance over opponents, which can be appealing for those with low self esteem or who feel powerless in other areas of life. Chess engines are useful in spotting potential cheaters as they assess each move made by the player and compare it against the best possible moves in that position. A percentage score is then calculated based on how closely the player's moves align with these optimal choices.

I still get angry looking at this gif I made of a game I lost to a cheater:

Cheater.gif

I knew soon after KF1 this was a cheater. Looks like he played the opening without cheating, then mouse slipped an attempt to castle kingside, but still managed to play every best move after that mistake and dominate me. Reported him. He was banned a couple days later.
 
SilverAlert said:
I'm constantly reminded there is a whole world around me that i don't know. I do have a question.

What is the motive for a person to cheat at chess online?

It appears you guys are true students of the game, referencing masters and watching a championship (real life.) I'm guessing, from your comments, the frustration comes from people ruining your development. (No purse or monies involved.)

I can't, even with magic algos, wrap my head around the idea that it can be determined that you played 96% correctly.

What does that mean?

How is that determined?
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't really know what the motivation to cheat is for lower rated players playing no stakes games. It puzzles me.

I can somewhat understand the temptation at the higher levels where money and reputation might be something someone would be willing to stoop to that level. But even then, who are you fooling. It's the same to me as sports professionals who use performance enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. You have to have some level of weakness in character to do that IMO.

As to the "accuracy", it is determined by algorithms that chess computers use to determine how good a particular move is in any position. If you play the second strongest move for a position for example your accuracy will go down compared to if you played the strongest move according to the engine.

Basically in every position in chess there is a list of potential moves that are calculated to 20, 30, 40+ moves ahead and the computer will decide which is better and by how much according to those "lines". Computers are significantly better than any human playing chess, so sometimes a move may only prove to be better if you can then find 10 or 15 perfect moves after that move.
 
That's why chess streamers will sometimes say that a certain move is "computerish" or "enginey" when they review their games afterwards and look at that engines suggested best move in a given position. Basically a move that no human would play because the line that's supposed to follow is perhaps counterintuitive in some way, even though it eventually leads to an clear objective advantage.
 
David Mary said:
That's why chess streamers will sometimes say that a certain move is "computerish" or "enginey" when they review their games afterwards and look at that engines suggested best move in a given position. Basically a move that no human would play because the line that's supposed to follow is perhaps counterintuitive in some way, even though it eventually leads to an clear objective advantage.
Click to expand...
Top level chess these days is learning computer lines, sometimes including these "engine" moves that no-one would ever play unless they had seen the ideal lines suggested by Stockfish or other strong engines. It's the way it is, but it's kinda sad that top players are basically memorizing variations rather than playing from raw talent or intuition, at least in the opening and early middle game. The best prepared player often is the one who wins.
 
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Time wasted, but i find this topic really interesting
 
SilverAlert said:
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Time wasted, but i find this topic really interesting
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you view learning something new as time wasted.
 
Not at all. It’s always a pleasure to share what I love with others and time well spent.
 
My highest achieved rating in rapid was 1178 last year toward the end of May. Since then I fell all the way back down to 957, and then started to slowly crawl my way back up. Just before December I was still in the mid to high 900s. But I doubled down on puzzles in the last couple months, and today (at the time of this post) after half a dozen rapid games or so, I'm back up to 1145. Which I find interesting, because I actually took about a week off of rapid (something I almost never do) and spent more time on daily. I don't know if the break helped necessarily, though, as most of my opponents today seemed to be missing some obvious tactics. But what goes around comes around, I guess, because latter half of last year I was face palming at myself a few times per game for missing obvious tactics myself, sometimes realizing them only moments after a move, and before my opponent had moved. Nevertheless, today was not a bad start to my chess year, and I'm going to make my goal to hit at least 1201 on chess.com rapid this year.
 
The scholar's mate, eh? It's a fun trick. Problem is it relies on the opponent making clueless moves.

Which makes me think of the Englund Gambit. I used to play it in blitz and rapid games, because of the sharp tactical traps that white falls prey to trying to defend the pawn. Then I learned it is regarded as an unsound opening, and is easily refuted. Now I can't remember the last time (since getting above 1050 or so) that I have lost to the Englund Gambit as white. Here is a funny one that happened just a few minutes ago.


I know I could have played that better, more efficiently, but a win is a win. I notice, even once out of book, Englund Gambit players often seem to go for unsound tactics that are relatively easy for (even a noob like) me to spot. Almost like playing that opening announces the black player as a hope chess player....
 
You know, I joined Chess.com about a year ago, and quickly found out that I am A LOT worse than I remember. 🤣 I lost interest pretty fast, and haven't played in nearly a year. But surprise, surprise.......they auto-renewed my membership a few days ago,. I wasn't going to do that, but I guess I'm there for another year. Maybe I'll try a few of the puzzles. Or maybe not. Losing isn't much fun. :(
 
The cat's out of the bag that I'm a "Person of Interest" fan, and while rewatching the series again, I got to the episode "If, Then, Else" last night, which is heavy on chess metaphors. I noticed in one of the flashbacks, that when Finch is first teaching the machine to play chess, in its first game it played f3 as white. I looked it up, and found it is the Barnes opening, which I have never played. I found this interesting:

1739210417340.png
 
I love chess. So why does it hate me?🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top