74 ( +1 | -1 ) Unintentional complimentI've always heard that being accused of using chess computer is a great compliment. After all, you're playing so well that your opponent actually believes you have to be cheating to find all those great moves. What better compliment could you ask for?
Finally, it's happened to me. On GK blitz earlier today. "You are using computer and I don't care to play your computer program, moron."
And in bright yellow: "Game ended: you win! (abandoned)"
Unfortunately, it didn't really make me all that happy -- all that was played so far was 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4. At least my ability to remember opening theory was complimented...
Anyone else ever (wrongly) accused of cheating, and did you happen to save that glorious game of yours?
48 ( +1 | -1 ) worst game everone time on pogo i played one of my worst games ever . lots of bad moves . i lost the game . in the rematch i played one of my best games and won . then my opponent got angry and said i was cheating . thats the way it goes some times . i know some one who hates playing chess on the net . he wins against a 1800 player then loses to 1300 . claims every one has a false rating . me i just enjoy the game and dont care about stuff like that .
26 ( +1 | -1 ) ganstamanyou have to play blitz more frequently and you'll find out a lot of interesting stuff about yourself. I don't think this topic is worth mentioning. You spotted yet another moron at the blitz area, big deal, there are probably lots of them there.
56 ( +1 | -1 ) gloomy_denIf I wanted to complain about the bad people who play blitz, I'd do it in the gk forum (like I did with the last one, who was actually a problem). But I found this more amusing than anything else. The reason I put it in the chess forum is because I really want to know if anyone has saved a brilliant game by them that has been accused of being the work of the computer.
Ok, maybe it was a little bit to complain (I haven't really encountered people like this at other actual blitz sites). But really, it was more to enjoy a laugh and see a few good games.
28 ( +1 | -1 ) Yes, I've had this happen a lot ...The last time was someone I'd played a lot in the past ... so maybe he was not Himself that day?! But reminded him, usually we played pretty evenly ... just not that day. And suggested "You think I am playing without tactical error?? ... then I think THAT is the problem! " And he seemed to accept that :)
27 ( +1 | -1 ) I was accused of sandbagging (or, as my opponent put it, "taking one for the team every once in awhile) because I entered the Intermediate tournament when my rating was right at 1500. Apparently that's actually grounds for me sandbagging. What could possibly be the point of sandbagging on Gameknot?
49 ( +1 | -1 ) Not any moreWhen I was around 1400 in GK, a couple of times I was falsely accused of using computers. One guy even used bad language, so I reported and put him on my ignore list.
Now I'm around 1500, and I don't remember anyone says something like that. We 1500-patzers knows how many blunders we make. I felt insulted when accused of using a program. I'm a patzer in chess, but not an idiot in computers or social interactions. If I use programs, I should be around 1800 without being suspected as a cheater.
157 ( +1 | -1 ) I was once accused of cheating with a program here on GK. I played an irregular gambit, similar to the Blackmar-Diemer, which my opponent apparently took to be the blundering loss of a pawn. He did not seem to understand that it was an intentional sacrifice, meant to speed up development and open lines (especially the e and f files) for attack. He fell further behind in development than necessary and left his king in the center, playing right into the attack. When suddenly my pieces swarmed upon him at move 13 and he needed to resign by move 24, he was sure that I had switched on a computer halfway through the game. After all, to his eye I had weakened my kingside with f3 and thrown away a pawn in the first half, only to overwhelm his king with a fully developed army in the second half. He claimed to have a strong commercial engine which agreed with all of my moves from 13 through 24. Because I don't own a strong commercial engine, I don't know whether that's true, but I have found, through my own analysis and through Crafty, ample mistakes made by myself in both halves of the game. So I doubt his claim.
Anyway, although I have been accused only once, I imagine I have been suspected of cheating on many occasions. I have an on-and-off love affair with unorthodox openings. I used to open regularly with 1. b4, and no doubt many reached the knee-jerk conclusion that I was a total beginner and, when they began to encounter stronger play than they had anticipated, suspected computer use.
277 ( +1 | -1 ) A little help at times ...is something I can do at Chessanytime blitz that I cannot do here at GK blitz ... which is that every so often between games I will go to the Active Games List there showing games in progress ... then click on to watch the games. *** When you do that it shows the players on their Chat area Who has signed on to watch their game. So that way they can see that there is at least a humanbeing Somewhere behind my Nik. And one who is interested in seeing games, and presumably capable therefore of understanding them... *** So I've found it to help in several ways: Even tho it is not any absolute proof (since someone could be using a program that is not hooked-in to the site, or allows watching anyway, etc.) I feel like it has gotten some more players to be inclined to play, what would avoid a computer. (I play vs them at times, but have to be In A Mood to do that ... about 4-5 times a year probably. Other times, I feel like its just a waste to sign on and play vs one.) *** (2) Besides that, it seems to help me in determining who might be using a computer to play against me by seeing a game or two of theirs. Do they make any mistakes? Do any unexpected captures come at faster than human-reflex speed? Do they show any purely human concepts/plans ... especially Traps! Traps are SO human ... as is Wishful Thinking, tho not a Good Strategy for most part. But blitz IS blitz! Also to look for Human pauses, etc. Or moves that always come, for eg, 2.3 seconds apart!? or whatever. *** I have noticed some players that will adopt some weird, playable only to a silicon mind openings. But it seems usually end up being misplayed, thus probably were just using the great new innovation their box come up with , rather than it doing the play. *** Another thing I like to do is Talk a bit. Tho there are programs one could be using and chatting too ... at least someone would know they are not sitting there facing a Lone-Ranger box just left online, inline. etc. Just a few remarks after move two or so can be reassuring, I find (to me too) . And there is also the chance to show off some of that Chess knowlege ...something like just being able to NAME The Opening you are in. But particularly if you can site a subvariation name, I think goes a long way toward showing you may know a little bit of Chess after all. Of course many boxes will ID openings now, even list a game using it perhaps. But if you can add a home touch like ... Fischer said he disliked it in 60 Memorable Games. Maybe it helps./ And as a last resort ... well you might always point out your Really Big Blunders! Of course even Those can be cleverly added in at just . . .
123 ( +1 | -1 ) LOLCertanly not computer play, i would say not even high Rated play maybe your just lucky!!!
How is this a draw?
Challenge from far1ey far1ey vs. ganstaman 3 days per move started: 18-Aug-06, ended: 18-Aug-06 Result: draw game 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Be7 5. dxe5 dxe5 6. Qd5 Nh6 7. Bxh6 =================== Let's play chess ganstaman vs. silkenfist 5 days per move started: 26-Jul-06, ended: 10-Oct-06 (black to move)
you would think that 1600-1800 players would make better moves
95 ( +1 | -1 ) I think you've crossed a line...It seems to me, wote , that your post above is bad form. If you want to post your *own* games and point out your *own* bad play, that's one thing; but looking up someone else's games and raising questions about their propriety (e.g., "It's like he was giving you the game" and "you would think [the players]would make better moves") seems inappropriate.
If you are making an allegation of cheating or game-fixing, bring it up with the management--don't make accusations in a public forum.
[As regards the short draw above, I've offered early draws on more than one occasion (some in situations that would cost me rating points) to players with personal issues. I don't think someone should be penalized because they, for example, have been hospitalized. But that's me. If you want to troll through my games and find a few, go ahead and report me.]
87 ( +1 | -1 ) ================================ "Message: kansaspatzer I was accused of sandbagging (or, as my opponent put it, "taking one for the team every once in awhile) because I entered the Intermediate tournament when my rating was right at 1500. Apparently that's actually grounds for me sandbagging. What could possibly be the point of sandbagging on Gameknot?" ================================ A sandbagger will generly have a rating that goes up and down constanly with in 100-300 points. one could set out to lose more of his Turnaments, to keep his rating down, and win all team games, but then his rating goes up.
Your rating does that , but games do not 11. kansaspatzer Rating 1483 pinots = 18 active games = 8 total games =238 your barly above 50% that same as your rating. out of 238 games you could say that you have won 18 games and the rest were all draws.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) I was supporting his statemant that his not using a computer program, buy looking at his games, I dont see how looking at my games, would support his staement of not using a chess program. Please read the tread in context......
16 ( +1 | -1 ) Fair enough......but I still think questioning the integrity of someone else's games ("this game makes little sence [sic]" and so forth) in a public forum is inappropriate.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) Fair enough...well maybe... but as you can see from the game The sacks were not sound, maybe i should have elaberatied, The ideas were there, but the follow thou was not sound. On the other hand all the games are public, anyone can Annotated anyone esle's games. So i must say i'm sorry, if i sounded rude, it was not intentional. Man Alive one has to be so carful what one says on a forum, because there are no voice tones in here.
166 ( +1 | -1 ) Well,Some interesting things seemed to have gone by....
1) I was talking mainly about blitz play, where it is easier for one to think they are up against a computer, I believe. The moves go by so fast that they may appear perfect to a sore loser.
2) "i would say not even high Rated play, maybe your just lucky!!!" "you would think that 1600-1800 players would make better moves"
Thanks? Don't know why I'm defending this, but -- my rating is still provisional, and Kramnik walked into a simple mate-in-1 (really, that can be used to justify anything!)
3) First game against far1ey I walked into an opening trap (wasn't expecting it, hadn't seen it before, was moving quickly through the opening). I offered to resign and start again, or play it out (which would have been mostly pointless down a piece). He offered to draw the game instead and start it again. His graciousness is not a reflection of anything related to me.
4) Second time around, far1ey's sacs were not unsound. The first one may not be best, but he certainly keeps an advantage. The second sac (of the knight) is necessary once in that position. It's in fact a pseudo-sac since he gets that material back nearly right away. If you think you can do better in that sequence, please, I'd love to see how.
5) Silkenfist was lost (I blame moves 22 and 23, but I also haven't looked at the game in a while). No draw. He's down the exhange and 2 passed pawns. In your proposed moves, why not 40. Rg7+, where black then loses more pawns and the knight? Really, I'm not so bad that I can't win that against Kasparov, even.
6 ( +1 | -1 ) DangI've never been accused of cheating! Whats that say for me? :)
5 ( +1 | -1 ) chessahoy ...That you are Too Crafty to get caught !? ! }8-)) just kidding :)
5 ( +1 | -1 ) maybe he's the one thats been cheated againist.
142 ( +1 | -1 ) far1ey-ganstaman...... I think wote is unduly harsh in his assessment of this game. The combination beginning 14.Bb6 was not at all unsound. In fact, White was well in the game until about move 30, when the exchange of knights gave him a somewhat worse game, and his drawing chances vanished with the rooks. As such, the line gave him winning chances, and in itself did not cost White the game. Any attempt to improve on Black's defence after move 14 will be interesting to see, as the line is a forcing one. As such, it isn't a difficult line, but 14.Bb6 is one of those moves that aren't easy to imagine (a) because it requires the follow-up sacrifice 3 moves later, and (b) because its implications, far from localised, span the whole board, with a sting in the tail that forces 19...Kf8 instead of exchanges on e7. It's not hard when you see it; the trick is to "see" it in the first place. Black's defence has to be commended as well. There were plenty of opportunities to lose the game, yet he certainly took the fight to his opponent. Look, whatever the objective quality of the game (and up to move 30 I reckon it was pretty high), it was chess as it should be played: a fighting game on both sides. We all make mistakes. Mine tend to be horrible, like the recent brevity in which I found 2 ways to blunder in just 11 moves. And recall the two best players in the world recently overlooking a mate in two in a match game. :-)
69 ( +1 | -1 ) Interesting idea...... but it seems that Black can safely take the knight:
14.(Nb5) cxb5 15.Bxb5+ Bd7 16.Bxd7+ Nxd7 17.a6 (say) Nxe3 ... and White doesn't have much attack left Try this: (14.Nb5 cxb5 15.Bxb5+ Bd7) 16.Bb6 Now, 16...axb6 17.axb6 is dangerous for Black, but after 16...Qc8 does White have any attack? 17.Bxd7+ Nxd7 18.Be3 (what else?) Nxe3 ... and Black keeps his extra piece. Nor does White seem to have time to insert somewhere in the sequence h3 in order to bring the knight into play by Nxe5. I don't think 14.Nb4 works, wote. Cheers, Ion
53 ( +1 | -1 ) Another look atI was looking more along these lines for Nb5
Do see any holes in any of these lines
14. Nb5 cxb5 15. Bxb5+ Bd7 16. Bb6 the second sack! in a better order 17. ....Qc8 18. Bxd7+ Nxd7 19. Rxa8 Qxa8 20. Qxd7+ Kf8 21. Qxg4 and whites up two pawns
21 ( +1 | -1 ) wote : You almost had me convinced, but I don't need to accept the bishop 'sacrifice.' So I believe 14. Nb5 cxb5 15. Bxb5+ Bd7 16. Bb6 Qc8 and I think black can finally be happy.
96 ( +1 | -1 ) wote...... Check out my last posting. You will find that in the paragraph beginning "Try this:..." I mentioned the 16.Bb6 line (following 14.Nb5 cxb5 15.Bxb5 Bd7). There I said that 16.Bb6 axb6 17.axb6 was dangerous for Black. Though I didn't show any further moves, I was satisfied that Black got a bad game accepting the second piece. Instead 16...Qc8 held things together, and Black retained the piece extra. I see that ganstaman has reached the same conclusion. I did try one line for White after 16...Qc8 and his attack peters out very quickly... What this kind of discussion does reveal, though, is just how crucial move order can be. What wote is suggesting is very similar to what happened in the game, but, on account of the move order, the thing falls over very quickly. The game continuation, whilst not necessarily obtaining for White a clear advantage, didn't compromise his game. To that extent at least, far1ey's sac was sound.
22 ( +1 | -1 ) ionadowman i think your conclusion is it right. I missed your point on Qc8, and i agree that crucial move order is always worth exploring. All games can be a draw until some has to move a peice. :)
139 ( +1 | -1 ) There is that!I think someone once remarked that every move creates a weakness for the opponent to exploit. He might have been talking only about pawn moves of course... (I recall a great spoof article on this very topic in a book edited I think by Isaac Horowitz. In the perfect game, White moves the king's knight back and forth Nf3, Ng1, Nf3, thereby creating no weaknesses for Black to latch onto. For his part, Black reciprocated in kind. Now and then one or other would spring a surprise by moving the other knight. The other was always on the qui vive, not to be taken in. Naturally, such a titanic struggle between masters with such a colossal positional understanding of how to avoid creating weaknesses resulted in a well earned draw...).
I quite enjoy these kinds of discussions. We don't always get things right (I've discovered, or have had pointed out to me, more than one error in my analysis in these forums, aside from typos and things). The 14.Nb5 line probably would have had to come into consideration as a possible improvement on 14.Bb6 anyhow. For all we know, 14.Nb5 might have been White's first thought, which led to the discovery of the latter move. When I saw the move played, I was struck by the imagination behind it. But I can see how one might be led to it by considering a perhaps more easily imagined move with similar ideas behind it. ;-)
35 ( +1 | -1 ) ion !Great post! As you have indeed solved for me a great mystery. ( saw the very sequence you describe being played out on some site. I think it was FICGS actually, our match competitors now.) And I had wondered "what gives". Well apparently they are game to try out a lot of such theories and so there I go. My question answered it does seem! So thanks for that one!
13 ( +1 | -1 ) oops, there I go again, MR R ...To be quite accurate, the one I saw had BLACK playing such a N sequence, I am nearly certain. But surely it is based on Horowitz I would think.
174 ( +1 | -1 ) Craig...... If you are referring to the "Horowitz" (?) article, the writer went into considerable detail explaining the positional depth behind the moves. In that instance, both sides adhered to the same theory. I think the writer of the article called himself Siegbert Tarrasch, but my memory could be at fault there. Of course, it didn't actually explain how an expert in these profound ideas might exploit the mistakes of those not so erudite. I imagine the explanation would be something like the following. Suppose, for example, our expert had the Black pieces, and his opponent was silly enough to play 1.e4??, creating a hole at e2, and leaving the e4-pawn temporarily hanging. Note also that any advance by the d- of f-pawns will leave them unable to count on the support from the e-pawn, at least until they reached the 5th rank. Our expert responds with 1...Nf6!! immediately exploiting the unprotected state of the rashly exposed e-pawn. The enemy, panicking, falls into the obvious trap: 2.e5? ... promptly refuted by Black's reply: 2...Nf8!!
w You can see the profundity of the concept. Black has lured forward White's e-pawn, whilst himself exposing no weakness for White to exploit. Sure, f6 is no longer available to the BKN but he still has the other knight! Furthermore, if the d- or f-pawns attempt to advance, they will have to reach the 6th rank before they could count on the support of the e-pawn. If they advance merely to support the exposed e-pawn, look at the broad central breach in White's centre the pawns have left behind. Arguably, White's game, if not in its last throes, is seriously compromised...
Now... what was this thread about again...?
92 ( +1 | -1 ) In the K-B-N thread...... the delicate matter of the Nalimov TableBase was broached as a way of discovering how to win this 4-piece ending. It has been established in this thread that you may not use the TableBase to assist you in ending you are currently playing. But wikipedia has an article on precisely this ending, which gives a very clear account on how to go about it, going through at least one ending by way of example. It seems that this might be OK to use, as - except for its illustrative ending - it doesn't give specific moves exactly. On the other hand, the description of the procedure might be held to be sufficiently particular to leave no doubt as to what move to play in a given position, even though that position doesn't appear in the wikipedia article. It seems to me that it would not be in violation of the spirit of the rules on engines, TableBases etc to consult the wikipedia article if you seemed to be heading for such an endgame. But I am going by memory. It may be more specific than I recall. Any thoughts?
183 ( +1 | -1 ) my views on what is cheatingOkay, I wanted to say a few things on this topic. I agree that there are an over-abundance of bad sports out there who are accusing people unfairly of cheating. However, for each 100 or so of these situations, there is 1 legitimate one. How do we know who is actually cheating? There are some players who are ranked like 20-0 and I wonder sometimes, how did they get there. Either they are legitimately good--or a chess computer is being used. I personally have a problem with databases too....I think that people should use their own minds to play chess rather than attempt to find the way other good players have played the same situations in the past. I am entitled to my opinion, of course, as I know others claim that books that tell openings and databases should be completely legal. I ask then, why can't you open based on what you know to work best for you rather than stealing the way someone else does it? If there are tried and true methods, then discover them without using the book while moving. I see that studying chess books away from a game may be helpful--but using it during a game to me is cheating. Once again, this is my opinion.
All this being said, I have never accused anyone of cheating...I don't feel as if I have enough proof to ever do so. Unfortunately this is the way things go on sites where you play chess online. I personally don't cheat--never plan to. I'm on a 13 game winning streak that occurred because I was using my mind, not someone else's. Sorry if I've offended anyone with anything I said...I am just sharing an opinion. I believe there are probably legitimate cheaters on this site--but since I can't prove who they are--I have no intention of calling them such.