chess problems

Chess Problems

Grant and you will unmask!
Wild name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
bosty 47 ( +1 | -1 )
Cheating Hello!

I have a question. How you find cheaters who are usinig chess programs (Like Fritz or ChessMaster) to win games?
What do you do, if you suspect someone is cheating? And what do you think about cheating?

I hate cheaters. They just cheat themselves thinking they are better then they are. You can't be good player if you are using programs against other players. It's ok, if you are using programs to learn chess, but not to use it against others.

Take care AND DON'T CHEAT!
cairo 164 ( +1 | -1 )
Rules Rules and Policies
§ 3. You may not use chess engines, chess programs, chess computers to help you decide your next move. You may not consult with anyone nor ask advice about any games in progress. You may analyze games with chess engines after they are finished. You may consult chess books or game/move databases at any time.

Question 21 in sections of FAQ
Q21: What is considered cheating? How to report cheaters?
A: It's quite simple -- you can not use anything besides your own brain, and you can not consult anyone besides yourself. That includes chess programs, chess engines or chess computers, your friends, colleagues etc. etc. Chess books and game/move databases are allowed (as they are permitted in correspondence chess too). Feel free to analyze your games with chess engines or discuss them with your friends after the game is over, but not while the game is still in progress. If you suspect someone is cheating, please contact webmaster with a formal complaint. Don't forget to include specific details of why you think someone is cheating.

I cannot answer your question: "How you find cheaters who are usinig chess programs (Like Fritz or ChessMaster) to win games?"
Therefore you must be very careful, using the word "cheater(s)" against anyone personally, unless you have hard evidence to proof it.

I agree with you that players who are exclusively and against the rules here at GK, using chess programs to play there games, is really cheating themselves!

Best wishes
Cairo
dysfl 93 ( +1 | -1 )
Not a problem in GK, at least for me. To start with, I don't see many cheaters in GK. They are a bit pesky when you meet one, but not as much irratating as a player with bad attitude. At my level (1400-1500), it is not an issue. Why a person use a program to beat a patzer like me?

I've been other sites, some I met, I could suspect using programs, but how can I be sure? I can't. However, if a person has a history of beating everyone for the last 30 games, it is odd. Also, I got sometimes accused of cheating in blitz sites like in ICC, when I beat a higer ranked player. It's a bad mix of blitz and free server, and I just take it and add them in my censor list (like ignore list in GK).

One method I use is to reduce game against new people with less than 100 games. Some people just create an account and waste their time to try some jokes on regular members and then go away. After I became a paying subscriber in GK, I found league games are more reliable.
bosty 52 ( +1 | -1 )
Answer to Cairo I read those rules and I understand it very well.
But like you said: "Don't forget to include specific details of why you think someone is cheating"! What are those specific details? How can you be sure, that someone is cheating?

I think it's impossible. Even if you use chess programs to try to find a cheater it's difficult, cause those programs play randomly.

Well, maybe if you are proffesional player-like Master or International Master you can find cheaters. For us-normal people it's almost imposible!

Regards,
Bosty
misato 129 ( +1 | -1 )
self-admitting ? Maybe there are some users who are not aware that it is forbidden to use chess machines. If you ask them about this, there is a chance that they tell you about it frankly. This would be an evidence, but I am not sure whether they get banned automatically then.

After a recent blitz game I received a message from my opponent who asked me if he had been playing vs. a program (I think he won the game, but was mislead by my profile text). Now I am thinking about an additional information similar to the cigarette packages in Germany ("contains irony which may cause false assumptions").

I agree, it is nearly impossible to prove cheating with programs. If the cheater is clever he only uses the program for the decisive situations and plays on his own after he gained the advantage. So the percentage of corresponding moves to Fritz or whatever is minimized (this percentage is a good hint, but no solid proof).

I don't know much about programs. But after team competitions in our OTB club a Fritz user lets the program analyze all Sunday's games and presents the results afterwards so that we know about missed chances or luckily won games. I have the strong feeling that Fritz is better than at least 1700-1800. So all players below can't be computer cheaters, can they?
bosty 37 ( +1 | -1 )
There are a lot of different chess programs, not only Fritz.
As I know last version of Fritz 10 (correct me if I'm wrong) has internation rating around 2400 poitns (Kasparov has it aroung 2750-again correct me if I'm wrong).

For me cheatig is no matter how you use chess programs. Or you use it for whole game or just one move it's the same. That's not you, that's not your brain, right?
misato 95 ( +1 | -1 )
absolutely right Even a single move using a program is cheating, no doubt.

What I only wanted to say is that this type of cheating is harder to detect (when followed by "normal" and weaker moves). In this case the cheater may claim that he had a "lucky idea" or a lot of time for that move. And this explanation looks more reasonable when not 80% of his moves follow computer-recommendations.

Concerning program ratings: I only know that they are stronger than I am, and I hit the German OTB-1800 this year for the first time. I have no feeling about the difference of 2000- and 2200-players or programs because they are too strong for me.
I only can tell that I never had any suspicion about any of my GK-opponents. And when I surf to some 1800+ players'games: very good moves can happen as well as simple blunders (not too often). So I don't feel I have to worry too much about cheating here.
honololou 8 ( +1 | -1 )
cheating is impossible to detect… unless you see somebody doing it. This is not very likely in correspondence chess.
cedsed 16 ( +1 | -1 )
Question I figure now is as good a time as any to ask about what has been troubling me for so long: Is using computer analysis published in a magazine or book cheating?

Justin
chuckventimiglia 46 ( +1 | -1 )
No it is not!! In correspondence chess you can use any
reference material that is in books, magazines,
databases etc etc.

You cannot use a chess program like Fritz or
Chessmaster to analyze an ongoing game and
generate moves. In other words you cannot
use Fritz to tell you what move to make in
an on-gong game. You cannot use human help
to plan a move.

Anything else is legal in this site and in every
other CC venue including USCF and ICCF. Chuck
alice02 60 ( +1 | -1 )
Different notions of cheating It is interesting to compare other on-line games with on-line chess.

There is a scrabble site -> thepixiepit.co.uk

and just below the scrabble board there is a word finder. You enter the letter you want to use froma word on the board. it will find all the words in the dictionaries it uses that have appropriate combinations of letters. You just click to let your opponent know you will be using it. You dont even have to think.

I hope this never happens to on-line chess!!!
silurasglanis 180 ( +1 | -1 )
Cheating Given the size of Gameknot the fact that some people cheat by using a computer whether for a single critical move or the whole game is almost a certainty, but the percentage is low. The trouble with chess and particularly ratings is that they are statistical, they give no indication of how a given player will play in a given game or how difficult an individual correct move they can find (even if for the wrong reasons). Team of chimps and shakespeare scenario. The rating reflects only their statistical performance against their opposition portfolio. I think it is natural when someone starts to lose against a lower rated player, or the lower rated player finds an excellent move, for the stronger player to seek consolation in thoughts that they are playing a cheater. I found my self doing this in one of my games, but managed to get my head straight.

If an individual uses a comp at critical move point then it is likely you will never know, and this may be detrimental to them, like playing book blindly, is. If they use a comp all the time then they will just appear to be a strong player, assuming their comp is any good.

Now whilst I do not have a programme capable of doing this, the best way to tell comp cheats is the way they play, weird and wonderful sequences and the like, I remember my mate (2220 BCF equiv) drawing a comp in the open of an OTB tourney, he was well into the middle game and thought he had it tied up and the win there to be squeezed out, the comp then did the most amazing sequence of moves with its queen, all over the board, just managing to escape being trapped, twice, eventually winning two pawns and the game. It was a very unhuman sequence of 10 or 12 moves.
bogg 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Just a question How is a supposed cheat to know when the critical point in a game is without using the computer first?
indiana-jay 33 ( +1 | -1 )
Critical point can be a complication (series of forced exchanges) where you know that you could make wrong move and endup loosing a piece. Computer is very precise.

We can also play in blitz style and when we arrive at a critical situation we can stop and start to play in cc style and win the whole game. Same effect.
elbulf2 33 ( +1 | -1 )
chess program use... is far more common on the internet and here at GK than most people think. How do I know? As
many have pointed out, you cannot see them do it, but you often have a good idea. I try to talk
to them about it. Some will actually confess (about 30%). Another 30% will stop during a game
if the topic is discussed.
bosty 49 ( +1 | -1 )
Cheating! Only once I suspected that someone was cheating.
On this page I played one game with player who had rating about 400 points LOWER then me. He beat me without any problems, Next game we played I destroyed him. But I didn't tell anything, cause I didn't have any evidence.

If you suspect then someone is cheating and tell that to webmaster. What is next? What can he do?

Real chess players don't cheat or they cheat only themselves.
silurasglanis 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Discussion in the game Elbuf,
I am slightly confused, for as many and your self say cheating is very hard to establish and hence it is unclear to me what gives you the sense that you should bring the matter up for discussion during the game, or that the cheating has stopped.

In fact I believe that if cheating is suspected you should report it, not bring it up in a game. I cannot think of a better tactic for combating an opponent who is playing a blinder than to suggest either directly or by inference that they are cheating, get them rattled or upset and hopefully get some advantage.

cheers
chuckventimiglia 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Any accusation of cheating.... will be immediately reported to Mike
as an insult. He will then deal with it as he
has done a few times in the past.

I suggest that if you suspect that your opponent
is cheating just simply do yourself and your
opponent a favor and do not play him again. Chuck
indiana-jay 171 ( +1 | -1 )
My opinion. I can't understand if any highly rated players should worry too much about his opponent using a computer. May be I have once reported to mike by someone. But he was about 1300 or something. What I mean is it's understandable if a 1300 player cannot "feel" the capacity of a much better player.

I know this very well because I experienced this kind of underestimation everyday. In my neighborhood, nobody think I'm good at chess, may be until last night. I more than often lost my games with them but I can guarantee that I'm capable of winning 100 points from 100 games with them in a 45-minute time control.

Last night, nobody put their money because noone want to bet on me as my opponent was the strongest. So I thought I need to give them a lesson. When my opponent lost the game, he made many excuses (he's just too weak to understand). I just left the crowd and didn't even take the money. And today, somebody message me after my loss that I need to learn more. Well, of course I do. That's what I'm doing :)

So, if you think you should be better than your opponent, and if you lose then you think your opponent must use a computer, may be you could use my experience to judge more fairly.

And if you're a highly rated player and worry too much about your opponent using a computer, may be you can read a thread where a poster wrote that his chess teacher told him: "Go ahead, use a computer if you wish. Computers cannot play chess anyway". Of course you can argue, but my point is, if you want your opponent is weaker than a computer, why not challenge 1500 rated players??
elbulf2 63 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with most of you... but I don't believe in reporting someone as cheating, unless you can prove it, which is very hard
to do on the internet. However, there are times when you suspect someone is using a program.
Sometimes I decide to bring up the issue. I might start out "The style and quality of you play
has dramatically improved during the last couple of weeks. How did you make such a dramatic
improvement?" A couple of times, I was playing 13 year old boys who I both knew were using
programs and I thought it was important to let them know they should not do that. One
confessed and the other stopped using. I think it was good to talk to them about it.
ccmcacollister 189 ( +1 | -1 )
Indiana-jay I had much the same "why worry" about computers in postal play back in the 1980's when I was playing at Master or Expert level ... and the programs only played a Class A level often. Or some would be 2100-2200 otb rated which loosely translated to objective strength of perhaps about a Class A postal rated player. But even then it would be possible to get yourself into a bad position if you were playing one and thought it were a much lower rated human player for eg. And vs that human you might want to play your gambits or other tactical varitions but would play differently vs a computer. This is especially true now with the better programs out there, I think.
Also there are things you can specifically do against computers to increase your chances. Back then sometimes simply better pawn handling and positional play were enough to beat them.
And trying to exceed their horizon. Which may still be useful. In the 80's any h-file attack like vs a Dragon was almost guarenteed to succeed. Now I dont know. But do find BLacks kings Indian attack ofi Classical lines has taken a number of computer scalps at slow or 10 min paces, including a 2600+ model, on FICS. So to me, opening choice would be very important if I thought I were playing a computer. And quite possibly different.
(Strangely a Center Game, has scored well vs Fritz/Tiger in a gambit line, because
they get into a transposition where BL ends up in a poorly played Goring Gambit position ... which is a compensated gambit even with good play by BL IMO. And seem to "find" themselves in a bad position that continues to deteriorate ... much like "we" [some of us humans!] do ! From having tried to win and hold the gambit pawn. They Still Do Like Material !)
}8-)
bogg 101 ( +1 | -1 )
Craig makes several good points. I don't have a problem because my natural style is anti-computer anyway. Other than pouncing on errors, when I see them, I play a very positional game. I am always looking to the endgame and seeking permanent advantages. If you play good moves you will win and isn't that what matters. Other than a perceived waste of time what is lost if your opponent is a computer cheat, a few rating points because they just started cheating and their rating isn't where the computer belongs? The only person losing is the person that cheats. They can receive no real satisfaction from the games. How can they when they don't understand what is going on?

PS
Even with the endgame tablebases computers still play abysmally in the endgame. I have won games where I was inferior numerous times because the lines were 30 to 40 moves deep but to a knowledgeable human they only seemed to be a few thoughts deep.