how many players use programmes..?
Sort:
Every cheater uses a program to win I suppose, someone has some thoughts as me
Let them use their programmes to their pervert delire for I can not understand why someone would use a programme in a game!Maybe to boost up their igo?
If players are using programs, then they are cheating. That said, I doubt that they would admit it on a public forum.
Perhaps, what you ran into is a person who is better at the opening or middlegame than they are at the endgame.
I do not think there are many cheaters on here. I think people are quick to call someone a cheater because they are getting beat. I know that I have been accused of cheating and I don't even own a program, so I took it as a compliment.
Actually, I was recently beat by a player rated in the 1200's. I never suspected that person of cheating. I figured that they took the game more serious than I did and I paid the price for it.
what sort of stupid moves? Sounds like either they are just simplifying, say swapping off a queen for your last rook, to get into an endgame a piece ahead, or maybe they are or feel they are so far ahead that they dont give their moves much thought, and perhaps make mistakes. Also, if you've been throwing material at them, then maybe they are just waiting for your next unsound combination. 
also, you can use opening books here, and i have played at least one person who played a flawless opening and as soon as I, probably through error, or perhaps at the end of the book line, left the book, started hanging their pieces.
Well yes..!..some good alternative reasons for a couple of my lost games...?
But !..players useing programmes does give me food for thought..?
we play correspondence games here, so IT IS allowed to use computers.
Therefore I cannot complain if somebody does it (I sensed many times , that indeed some people here use them, in particular in tactical situations).
I don't use a computer program - I play for fun here, but I can even not recommend to others, to do the same.
I very well use chess engines, except to look for a move in an on-going game. If I analyze a game or position (seriously speaking), it's imperative to have an engine, just to act as a safety-net. As in any examination, it's important to check your answers.
Are you saying its alright to use computer programs/engines to analyze your position in an ongoing game? If so, You may want to read the following from the rules for playing.
http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed. "
It would not fulfill anything to use computers as you would only gain a few rating points which you would not deserve.
I though analyse some games when they are finished to see what went wrong.
P.S. I think it is just plainly stupid to even use an opening book as it is not you who comes up with your moves, you should play up to your streangth not someones else.
mvh Fredrik
FHansen wrote:
It would not fulfill anything to use computers as you would only gain a few rating points which you would not deserve.
I though analyse some games when they are finished to see what went wrong.
P.S. I think it is just plainly stupid to even use an opening book as it is not you who comes up with your moves, you should play up to your streangth not someones else.
mvh Fredrik
Well said my friend!
Monicker wrote:
Are you saying its alright to use computer programs/engines to analyze your position in an ongoing game? If so, You may want to read the following from the rules for playing.
http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17 ">http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed. "
yes, I think it is a call to 'more morality', and useless, since you cannot prove thatsomebody uses computer programs in correspondence games.
Yes, I think this rule should be cancelled.
As I said, I do not use programs here. I do use them in correspondence tournaments, as most people do.
mandelshtam wrote: Monicker wrote:
Are you saying its alright to use computer programs/engines to analyze your position in an ongoing game? If so, You may want to read the following from the rules for playing.
http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17
"You many only have ONE Chess.com member account. You may NOT get any help from any person or any chess engine that analyzes your specific position, including tablebases. You MAY use books, magazines, or other articles. You may also use computer databases (including Chess.com's Game Explorer). EXCEPTION: If both players agree for the use of a chess engine in an UNRATED game then it can be allowed. "
yes, I think it is a call to 'more morality', and useless, since you cannot prove thatsomebody uses computer programs in correspondence games.
Yes, I think this rule should be cancelled.
As I said, I do not use programs here. I do use them in correspondence tournaments, as most people do.
You absolutely can prove that someone is using an analysis engine during their games. You compare the moves of a game (not just one usually, but a number of the accused user's games) to moves suggested by commercial chess engines. If the games have a very high percentage of the recommended moves (I'm not sure what the cutoff is here) then that person is cheating. Other sites have game moderators that police cheating accusations and use a method similar to the one I have described. It works just fine and dandy.
you are right. But is such a (statistical) proof (95 percent or so coincidence with Fritz , out of 40 moves...) officially accepted , and does it lead to punishment?
The point is also that you can selectively use a computer (for instance, in a very tactical situation, or when your position is bad, I am sure, exactly this happens most often). Then the coincidence percentage will be much lower. I had many games where my opponent played very bad, but with his back the wall he suddenly showed ingenious defensive capabilities...
In such a case, your cheating opponent will and can fight decisions of the moderators...
mandelshtam wrote:
""The point is also that you can selectively use a computer (for instance, in a very tactical situation, or when your position is bad, I am sure, exactly this happens most often). Then the coincidence percentage will be much lower. I had many games where my opponent played very bad, but with his back the wall he suddenly showed ingenious defensive capabilities... ""
I have had similar experiences myself in plenty of games. I would easily win a piece or a pawn or two, then suddenly, my opponent begins playing like a GM.
Jul 5, 2008
0
#17
Checkers4Me wrote:
If players are using programs, then they are cheating. That said, I doubt that they would admit it on a public forum.
Perhaps, what you ran into is a person who is better at the opening or middlegame than they are at the endgame.
I do not think there are many cheaters on here. I think people are quick to call someone a cheater because they are getting beat. I know that I have been accused of cheating and I don't even own a program, so I took it as a compliment.
Actually, I was recently beat by a player rated in the 1200's. I never suspected that person of cheating. I figured that they took the game more serious than I did and I paid the price for it.
you are right,i do that sometimes,out class people for the first two stages then some how blow it happens that way sometimes
I don't use programmes.
And I'd say let those who use them do the research for us. We play against them, we learn from their "programmed" moves, and we thank them for the bother. :))
Just...
I use computer chess to crush my ego back down to size after beating the fish on the internet with openings like 1. e4 e5 2. Ke2.
Maybe they just have studied the opening a lot. I just played a game with Fritz 6, and I held to within a half pawn minimal advantage for Fritz for about 27 move cycles. Now, if I had just been handed the game score to analyse, and I hadn't played it, I could very easily say that the person playing my side of the board had been cheating. We are too quick sometimes to cry cheater cheater just because we lose. I am just a class player in the US system, not even a titled player, so if I can play Fritz well into the middlegame without combusting, who is to say the people on the net can't hold a solid game against us non-computer mortals. Another note: We are also quick to say someone played 'like a master'. When I set my computer to master standard, it cracks me on the head with much more unforgiving accuracy than I've found while playing the net folk. It would be good to play against a comp running at full capacity so we can remember what 'master' feels like across the board.
I was reading a post a while ago,about a player wanting advice about a game he was playing.!which I thought was a bit sneaky..!
And upon hindsight I wondered how many players use programmes to win games...?
I have noticed with a few games that i have played and lost....That towards the end of these games they make stupid moves ! yet they have played like masters up untill then..?