Cheaters Beware - You Will Be Caught

Proffesional chess  players do not need to cheat.

Grandmasters cheating  who would think such a thing  as a grandmaster cheating

unless 100% computer Moves with rybka  same.

I go through games in my database kitbizing using rybka never Have i seen 100 % moves by both From where the opening ends off course.

not even we fritz or shredder have I seen 100%

Please note My Comments are only food for thought  and not to suggest any cheating going on.

"who would think such a thing  as a grandmaster cheating "

Of course, noooooo grandmaster has ever been accused of computer cheating.....not even in world champion matches....

I use a Chess calculator it is called my brain.

It only has half a K in memory so to speak . Explains why its Useless lol.

Batgirl. I do not believe anyone cheated in the world championships.

Grandmasters of world championship quality. Can play with nearly perfect chess moves in there games.  and being accused of cheatting was only to put the grandmaster off his game.  and was a plot to help the other win.

90% of the moves correct.  Some Elite grandmasters Would expect a better per centage than that.

Just food for thought.

The number one reason for not using books to learn openings is because it won't work. The learning of chess in general and opening theory specifically is a matter of thoughtful consideration. It was years before I got my first opening book. Before that all I used was my general knowledge of opening theory. Guess what, I wound up playing book moves most of the time anyway.

I do not mind if my opponents want to look up stuff in MCO. It won't help them understand the plan behind the opening and they will be lost when we leave the opening book. This is especially useless when they play against me since I now use a systemic opening repetoire instead of playing the book move side of most openings. And a lot of the opening lines have difficult logic to follow.

Remember when Larry Evans wrote in Chess Life about the refutation of Ng5 in the Two Knights Defense of the Guico Piano because of the Fritz variation. He did not explain the logic behind each and every move and so I had a lot of trouble following along when I thought up moves he did not mention.

You might learn what the moves are which are used in an opening but you will not learn the opening by using a book while playing. Active learning and chess study happen off the tourney board.

Well, personally, I spend very lttle times studying openings. Usually, it amounts to looking at games that used an opening variation I just messed up to see how it may have been handled better.   But I do feel, if one does want to study openings, it can be done before a game, or after a game, but never during a game. During a games is when you should exercise your mind, not your reading skills. Exercising your mind will have greater and longer-lasting benefits.

But... rules are rules...

"Remember when Larry Evans wrote in Chess Life about the refutation of Ng5 in the Two Knights Defense of the Guico Piano because of the Fritz variation."

No, I forget...

Since I play the 2 Knight defense (a lot!), and I encounter Ng5 (a lot!), though I have my own ways of dealing with it, can you explain, or at least hint at, Larry Evans' ideas behind the Fritz variation (of which I've never heard)?

I can help with the Fritz variation, named after Alexander Fritz (1857-1932), a German master.  The moves are:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4

Hmm billwall care to explain slightly more on it? What if 6. d6? or 6. c3?

Thanks!

That's interesting too.

Is it indeed a refutation?? 

I haven't examined it but for a minute in winboard and it looks like no matter that white does next (except maybe f3?), black should play ...Bg4.

Something's gotta give...

I need to look at this closely.

Larry Evans claims its a refutation but then I've heard that the entire King's Gambit has been refuted about every other decade too. ^_^

Even if he is right most of us can't use it. I need more than pressure on this square or a tempo here to convert into a win.

I also used to play the two knights defense a lot. and the fried liver attack. I like to play either side because its one of the few openings where I know a lot of traps. Perfect for blitz!

I would never play the Cunningham Na5 because I have way too much trouble converting initiative and attacks into a solid mate. I especially hate the version most computers play where they give up another pawn.

A board without pawns is a sad thing indeed.

Incidentally, IP banning does not work. There have been methods and now there is software that will easily allow anyone to send a bogus IP to their local router. Even the MAC address which was burned into individual machines could be faked.

First post, new to the site - hello all. 

I'd like to say thanks to Erik for taking an aggressive move and banning cheaters.  Unfortunately you can't get away from them but it nice to know that once their discovered they will be given the boot. 

I never understood cheating, you get a feeling of accomplishment by not accomplishing something on your own?

In the old days computers cheated at playing chess by using people. Ever hear of the The Turk? A chess playing automaton that hid a master inside.

Hmmm... come to think of it wasn't Kaspy accusing Deep Blue 2 of using a human? IBM was mighty quick to disassemble it after the win.

They will have to start frisking players at Corus to see if they have Nigel Short in their pockets.

Hello and welcome to the sight,

The reason behind it is ego and arrogance they simply don't care and I can prove that look at Fics 8 out of 10 guest players on that sight are automated bots running Rybka or some other super engine there aren't any points no money and no prizes to be gained so what does it give them to sit there for hours winning game after game without doing any thinking at all?! must be really boring.

Brings up a good point actually, and perhaps this belongs in a new forum, but what is it about chess that makes it so addicting? What do you take from chess? Some people apparently take nothing more than seeing their rating rise...  sad really. But those people exist. 

But a positive question in this thread... what do YOU take from chess?

Personally, I am a golfer as well. And even when I don't score well on the course, i usually had a few shots that I was proud of that made me keep coming back.

So it is with chess. There is such an addicting feeling to studying a position and finally finding that one move that contradicts intuition, but answers the problems of the position. Be it an attacking move which forces mate, or a defensive move which keeps the game alive, or the prophylaxic move which wins me the initiative... there is an addicting feeling to finding my own moves.

That is why I say cheaters are not lifelong players. They will never know the true joy of chess... and when they have had their fun, they will go on to something else, taking with them a few fond memories of running up their rankings on different sites.  

That is why I don't really worry too much about cheaters online.