I understand the OP's point but someone who wants to cheat really only has to decide that they would prefer winning a game by any means than to lose. Some will rationalize their decision to cheat (e.g. I think he cheats, so I will too; I have this game won but I just want to check that I'm not missing something; I don't have time to look this over completely so I'll see what the engine thinks and decide if I agree that I would have done the same thing; the engine is actually teaching me how to play; etc). And since there's a rating system, some will simply cheat because they don't want their rating to go down regardless.
Originally posted by PhlabibitI remember that guy, he sent me a pm saying that RHP was for "fat old men and housewives"! He claimed in the message that he could "mop the floor" with any and all of the top 20 players here. I sent him a note offering to set up such a match so we could all see, but his mailbox had already been 3b'ed. 😛
Some cheat for 'leverage'. One recent cheat took a run at another user in the forums. "I'm an IM rated way past what you know about chess!"
Originally posted by MontyMooseWhich one exactly it was? As I know there were more than one arrogant and impolite cheaters.
I remember that guy, he sent me a pm saying that RHP was for "fat old men and housewives"! He claimed in the message that he could "mop the floor" with any and all of the top 20 players here. I sent him a note offering to set up such a match so we could all see, but his mailbox had already been 3b'ed. 😛
Originally posted by davidgraysonThe fact that you're using a pseudonym doesn't mean that what you say is meaningless, or that people can't get to know you in a way. It's still "you" that's participating in the forums, along with your ego, no matter what name may be attached. In fact, knowing someone's real name and what their face looks like might not make much of a difference (e.g., there are a lot of non-anonymous bloggers that get into exactly the same kind of petty flamewars and ego-flaunting, etc.)
Yes but on RHC most everyone is anonomous anyway, exect for a name! It's not like OTB where everyone knows who you are.
How can you feel glorious if nobody even knows who you are?!
Originally posted by AristolleYour wall's too high.
It's generation 'me, me, me' they want to be feared and respected as a dangerous Players like Alexi Shirov or Bobby Fischer but they don't want to do any of the hard work and what it really takes to deserve that respect they want instant results like NOW.
Using a program feeds their ego and delusion they are on the level of these Gms.
I don't think they all have to be sick. it's possible they could be only disrespectful and trying to improve their analysing skills. I just love analysing with my beloved engine (rybka), it feel's like I'm learning from a grandmaster, experiencing new ideas, concepts, tactical shots, strategical plans, anything. When a game gets close to an end, a win, loss, draw, whatever it is, I can't wait to jump to chessbase with my pgn and click add kibitzer.
in chess, after basic tactical concepts, learning is mostly by osmosis, and the best you can do it is by analysing lots of games yourself and with an engine. so, cheaters maybe just disrespectful, but there's a learning side of playing with engines too.
I think the sick part comes in when they just show off in the forums, participating in discussion. that ih8sens guy simply had made me sick. I really was getting dissapointed with myself, seeing how that kid developed into an 2000 player and I was falling back to 1500s. and he was always flourishing the "Tal style he had." I don't even feel sorry for him, yet it's really pathetic. shame on him, and others of course.
Originally posted by diskamylSo chess is mostly learning by osmosis. Fair enough. Just tell me where the cheating part comes in, and i do mean 800-1200 players pretending that they are unstoppable chess machines that rarely blunder, and never lose.
in chess, after basic tactical concepts, learning is mostly by osmosis, and the best you can do it is by analysing lots of games yourself and with an engine. so, cheaters maybe just disrespectful, but there's a learning side of playing with engines too.
Diskamyl wrote about improving one's play.
"...analysing lots of games yourself and with an engine...."
Every strong player I know will disagree with this.
Computers have their place, but you must know their drawbacks.
Their positional play is suspect.
They access positions with an material inbalance wrongly.
They cannot grasp long term tactical counterplay.
They have tactical horizons.
They are stupid.*
To me their main drawback is they do not know what a
difficult move is for a human to find.
For example: If they are looking at a position and find a mate
in 6 but then find a very hard to see (for a human) resource they
will not even display the variation.
So if it's getting beat but can see a trap that would be very
hard for, let's say, an under 1800 to defuse.
It will not play it because it is unsound.
They cannot cheapo an opponent.
Turning around lost positions is a very important part of any
chess player's ability.
I also disagree that the cheating player is actually learning.
How can he be?
He is not analysing the position. He is letting the computer choose
his move. He is not looking to see why the move was played.
He is simply sending a move an engine chose.
Someone who does not even know the rules of the game can do that.
How to Improve:
Join a club, play strong players, ASK questions, listen.
Study good chess books (you will see on here the same books
being mentioned time and time again - seek these out).
Find a GM whose style of play you like, one that suits you.
(it's important that it suits you - don't pick Tal - he was a genious)
Having chosen your GM - steal his opening rep.
I was John Nunn for about 5 years. An excellent choice.
*Stupid Computers:
I was reading about a powerful engine that had an ending database
attached. It was winning an endgame very easily,
a King & Knight and 2 pawns. v a King and 1 pawn.
One of the extra pawns can Queen in 7 moves.
Suddenly it recognised it could go into one of it's 'won' positions in
it's ending database.
So it sacced the extra piece by simply giving it away
just to play on auto cue from it's database.
Thus lengthening the game by about 20 moves.
How stupid is that?
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't see it as being stupid. There are no extra points for winning the game in less moves. But maybe using less time is important and being able to play instantly from a database is ideal from a time perspective.
Suddenly it recognised it could go into one of it's 'won' positions in
it's ending database.
So it sacced the extra piece by simply giving it away
just to play on auto cue from it's database.
Thus lengthening the game by about 20 moves.
How stupid is that?
By not saccing the piece, it may have assessed its winning chances as 99.9%. By saccing the piece, it saw its winning chances as 100%. And picking 100% rather than 99.9% isn't stupid. 🙂 But I agree that it's not the way us humans think.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm not sure what kind of endgame database was used in the example that you gave, but that kind of ridiculous throwing away of material is very common with engines that I've used that are accessing Scorpio bitbase endgame files. (Or probably any bitbase endgame files in general.) They will often throw away lots of "unnecessary" material just to get into some trivial winning endgame position, regardless of how many moves are needed to reach mate.
*Stupid Computers:
I was reading about a powerful engine that had an ending database
attached. It was winning an endgame very easily,
a King & Knight and 2 pawns. v a King and 1 pawn.
One of the extra pawns can Queen in 7 moves.
Suddenly it recognised it could go into one of it's 'won' positions in
it's ending database.
So it sacced the extra pi ...[text shortened]... e from it's database.
Thus lengthening the game by about 20 moves.
How stupid is that?[/b]
I haven't noticed this kind of stupid behavior when engines are using Nalimov endgame tablebase files. (Nalimov EGTBs know how many moves there are to mate, but bitbases lack this knowledge. Bitbases only know whether there is or is not a mate.)
Originally posted by greenpawn34I truly cannot understand the antipathy of some master level players against engines. all grandmasters today even use engines in their opening preperation, and I believe Kasparov analysed every single one of the games he annotated in his Predecessors series with a computer.
Diskamyl wrote about improving one's play.
"...analysing lots of games yourself and with an engine...."
Every strong player I know will disagree with this.
Computers have their place, but you must know their drawbacks.
Their positional play is suspect.
They access positions with an material inbalance wrongly.
They cannot grasp long term tac t's database.
Thus lengthening the game by about 20 moves.
How stupid is that?
Every strong player says "analysing annotated games" is the key method to improve once you're past the level of constant piece hanging. It's a total consensus there, right?
So when I step forward and say "you should analyse lots of games yourself and with an engine" it becomes so wrong that it demands a whole page of refutation, mainly based on how terrible, just terrible engines are.
greenpawn, I really respect your knowledge and experience, and I would rely on your suggestions on any other topic, but what I have learned from these forums is that people, and surprisingly many strong players too, know so very little about engines. you're assumptions have begun shaking after Fritz's refusal to take the pawn on that Kasparov match, and today are simply plain wrong, especially after the entrance of Rybka to the engine scene.
just take the word of a 1600 who has a lot of experience with all kinds of modern engines, and give Rybka a shot. you do not have to buy it, just look through her games played against human (GM) opposition.
I'll post one example in which Rybka totally outplayed postionally a very famous chess coach and DVD author, Dzindzichashvili, in a pawn odds game:
this is only one example. Rybka has even outplayed GMs (Joel Benjamin) in the opening several times in a match, with no book (only a 3-depth book to avoid repitions).
and when you accuse computers of not finding some clever - human way of causing difficulty for the opponent even if it's objectively worse defense against best play, it's like accusing a computer of not being able to have breakfast and drink orange juice while having a nice chat. No one is suggesting to leave the computer to do all the analysing itself. there'll be a human being in charge, to analyse variations and ideas with it.
and i didn't understand why you would assume cheaters have to not analyse the games they are playing. think of it as real FIDE Correspondence, where players analyse positions to death with their knowledge and experience and with engines. I'm sure it would be a very decent way of studying. If I were a cheater, I'm sure I would've found a very practical way of using the engine which would help me improve my game.
I'm not defending cheating here by the way. Once the rules are established, and there's an agreement upon every player in this community that everyone will play against human opposition, then it's against the principles of the site and disrespectful, because one can always play against engines in whatever condition he'd like, bu this site is just for practice against human style play.
Originally posted by diskamylThis certainly does not seem a GM level game.
I truly cannot understand the antipathy of some master level players against engines. all grandmasters today even use engines in their opening preperation, and I believe Kasparov analysed every single one of the games he annotated in his Predecessors series with a computer.
Every strong player says "analysing annotated games" is the key method to improv bu this site is just for practice against human style play.
What was the point of the first half dozen moves?