Chess Against Computer

Vote and you will uncover!
Funny name, real matters

Tags: Play Chess Online Free, Chess Game, Chess Tricks, Chess Tactics, Chess

justawful ♡ 186 ( +1 | -1 )
Internet Cheating It's a big problem these days. I only play casually and I don't play rated so it doesn't affect me as much as it can affect some others, but I have found that on many playing sites there are players using computer programs or handheld chess computers to calculate the moves for them. I'm not even going to speculate "why" someone would do this, I just wanted to offer my own insights.
I have come up with my own devices on how to spot an "internet chess cheater". Here's what I've found.
1. If they play the first game and lose miserably, but play the next game and seem to be an entirely different player.
2. If they are weak in the first game but tell you they have a friend or relative that wants to play you next, and that person is really good.
3. If they will play as fast as game 5 but will refuse to play game 2 or game 1.
4. If they tell you they won't play under time constraints, but will move fairly quickly.
5. If you ask them the name of the opening they are using and they haven't a clue.
6. If they consistently make great moves, say in a game 5, but will not chat until the game is over.
7. If they play like a master and revel in insulting you.

In any and all of these cases I always challenge them to game 1. The internet chess cheater does not have time for a computer to make the moves for him in anything as fast as game 1 or game 2.

I'm not saying these methods are fullproof or that they are always right, I'm just offering them as a guide for the frustrated player (like myself) that wants to know they are on equal footing in the game. As a speed player I can usually weed them out, but in a longer game against someone on the internet I always have to wonder.
Thanks for listening to my rant.

More: Blitz Chess

calmrolfe ♡ 66 ( +1 | -1 )
When you say "game 1" and "game 2" I take it you mean one minute or two minute games ?

When I played on Kasparov I used to enjoy their 2 minute plus 12 second increment games, but I found the one minute games to be too fast for me, there just wasn't enough time to think and even though I invariably had the better position I always lost the one minute games on time !!

I never had the impression that I was playing a computer in any of the games though, maybe computer usage varies from site to site ? Anyway, Kasparov Blitz site is now dead so I will now play my blitz games on Ajedrez, chessnet, ICC and InstantChess

Kind regards,

Cal

More: Best Chess Games

justawful ♡ 55 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks for your reply Cal. Yes I do mean 1 or 2 minute games. The larger and less serious sites, such as Yahoo or Zone.com, seem to have what I believe is a preponderance of chess cheaters. Many adolescent attitudes prevail on those types of sites, but I find the sites very easy to access and very easy to get games quickly. For these reasons I still play at them. I'm not very familiar with this site. How would one know, for instance in a long game, if the opponent were taking liberties?

More: Lemon Chess Pie

gramario ♡ 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Flogged to death You probably have a point in your post, but this has been discussed so much in so many threads, and there is really little you can do about it. One of the reasons that people enjoy turn-taking chess (as here) is because you do not get hassled by having to play when you have to do something else, work for instance.
I personally get little joy from playing blitz games and making inferior moves because you do not have time to think.
If you do a search through the archives you will find the threads and you can see what people's opinions and thoughts were.

More: Chess Online

certainratio ♡ 241 ( +1 | -1 )
some comments 1. It is possible to use a computer successfully
in one minute games. But you have to write a
program that transfers the moves automatically
for you.

2. I totally disagree with points 2, 3, 6, and 7
in the original post. For (2), it is quite
conceivable that they do have a friend or
relative. In fact, I was once somebody's stronger
friend myself! (3) is not incriminating. Lots
of people who play 5min games refuse to play
1min or 2min. In fact, I myself do. This is
because, while I am fairly decent at 1min and
2min, I strongly prefer 5min because of the
possibility of reaching and playing a decent
endgame. As for (6), it's ridiculous to assume
someone is using a computer just because they
won't chat during a 5 min game. I never chat
during a 5 min game, even if i am much better
than my opponent. Why waste valuable time?
As for (7) I have been beaten by very strong
players who have insulted me, and I'm sure they
weren't using computers. They might not have
been masters though. Maybe 2000-2200 ELO. Face
it, some people (even good chess players) can
be arrogant bastards. Now the other points
on the list are better but they too do not
constitute proof.

3. Internet chess cheating is not a problem.
If you play many games on the internet, what is
the difference if a few of them are chess
engines? Treat your opponents like a black box.
It doesn't matter where the moves are coming
from--in any given position where it is your
turn to move, your move should be the same
regardless of whether your opponent is a 1200,
a grandmaster, or fritz (i realize this is only
an opinion). computer users that are better than
you will have a higher rating than you and you
will be less likely to play them anyway. i have
a rating of 2050 at one site. i once played
someone with 2550 and got demolished. it didn't
matter whether they were using a computer or not.
i knew i had only a very small chance of winning
before the game began. i would lose to a real
life master just as easily as i would lose
to my chessmaster program at home. ratings are
good, while they have no absolute meaning, they
have relative meaning, and they are a good way
to make sure you are playing someone with
approximately your own strength.

-Beau

More: Chess Rules

dorsflando ♡ 65 ( +1 | -1 )
there's indeed not much you can do about it! Anyway, someone who uses a program can't possibly have any kind of satisfaction when winning a game.. maybe you could challenge a player who's probably cheating to a 5 min game on another site, to see if he's really that good! As to 1 min games, I don't think one can learn anything from it: it's way too fast,so one can even sacrify material without a plan, just to make the other think..I think it's merely "pushing wood" as fast as possible; some people with an attitude even become rude when you refuse to play on 1 min (probably just because they lose in a "normal" game)

More: How To Play Chess

justawful ♡ 56 ( +1 | -1 )
As I said in my original post, "these methods are not always right, I'm just offering them for the frustrated player", of course, as in everything, including chess, there are exceptions. I also metioned that I do not play rated, so a posted rating does not exist on the site on which I am mainly referring.
I'm new to this site so I wasn't aware this topic has been disussed at length. At any rate, perhaps my own insights into cheating have not been. I will refer to the archives.
Sorry to have bothered the membership with this.

More: Play Chess Online Free

certainratio ♡ 192 ( +1 | -1 )
one minute chess one minute chess can actually be more
than just pushing wood (or moving mice).
I watched a great one minute game between
two high-rated players (2200 vs. 2400).
The 2400 had 2 seconds and the 2200 had 3
seconds left. There didn't appear to be
any mate in sight. But three moves later
(at move 50) the 2400 delivered mate with
no time left! Of course, the 2200 could
have stopped the mate, but at that point in
the game, mate was probably the last thing
on his mind.

I've also seen opening traps work nicely in
one minute games that led to an early mate
or the win of material.

One minute chess is not really chess. It's
a different sport. The intermediate goals
aren't the same. But there is a lot of strategy
involved. I once saw a one minute game where
there were only kings and pawns left. Both
players were pushing passed pawns toward
their queening squares. The following amazing
situation arose:

White had a pawn on f7 and was about to queen on
f8. Black's King was on h7. Black had a pawn
on d2 and was about to queen on d1. It was
White's move. White had 1 second left, Black had
2 seconds. White made a very clever move. He
played f8=N check! Black already had the pointer
over his d-pawn and was planning on pushing it
forward again. So, when White unexpectedly
called check, Black was flustered and had to bring
the pointer back over his king, but he ran out
of time and lost. If white had queened instead,
black probably would have won on time by 1 second.
A brilliant one minute move by White, but not
a brilliant chess move, as it actually gave
him a losing position.

I've seen a lot of amazing 1-minute games that
involved more than just pushing wood. Lots of
opening traps. Unsound sacrifices leading to mate.
Lots of clock strategies.

-Beau

More: Chess Corner

justawful ♡ 91 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, I agree and I've often stated to players that disdain speed that 1 and 2 minute chess is a different game than "real" chess and has to be viewed and played that way. Since I'm a marginal "real" chess player, and probably always will be I like both games, but I treat them differently. Whenever I hear the statement "I don't play speed, it's not real chess" to me, it's the same as saying "I don't play checkers, it's not real chess". They just don't see that it's a totally different game in itself and can be enjoyed just as much. It certainly gets the heart racing and can be a lot of fun. I've heard that many of the masters of "real" chess enjoy it for this reason also, so to my way of thinking that, in itself, is a good endorsement. A quality chess player that doesn't play speed because they think it beneath them is, in my opinion, losing out on some great entertainment.

peppe_l ♡ 98 ( +1 | -1 )
Im not a quality chess player But if we are talking about 1+0 games, it certainly doesnt get my heart racing, vice versa - to me its simply boring. In 1+0 having a fast mouse (hand) is way too important IMO.

I fully agree 1+0 is not chess, but since its a different game, why all chess players must like it? If you like playing chess, does that mean you have to like playing poker too?

2+0 and 1+0 are different games too. I sometimes play 2+0 actually :-)

IMO Beau says it very well,

"Lots of opening traps. Unsound sacrifices leading to mate. Lots of clock strategies."

The question is do you like chess that is mostly about fast mouse (hand), simple traps, cheapos, even making bad moves on purpose. To me playing in such way is simply boring. Some people like it and thats fine, but not all chess players have to enjoy speed chess. Personally I enjoy fast games sometimes (as long as they are not 1+0 etc) but they can never be as fun as a good slow game! :-)

edmaster ♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 )
ABOUT YAHOO? THERE ARE PLAYERS THAT I HAVE SEEN WHO HAVE RATINGS OVER 3500!EVEN FISCHER OR KASPAROV HAVE NEVER ACHIEVED!NO GRANDMASTER HAS EVEN ACHIEVED A RATING OF 3100 YET!AND WHEN I PLAYED A COUPLE OF 3000 RATED PLAYERS I CRUSHED THEM!

triangulator ♡ 48 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree I have stopped playing on yahoo- too bad I peaked at 2389- but it went down when my luck went down and I started playing progs in 5 min! there on ICC there on GK there on USCL( I dont care anyway they suck)- it is a real problem, I just come here I play everyone with an open mind: because I know 1700's oh beat shulman in 20 min cus they are so good tactically, but positionally they suck: just like progs.