Any easy way to tell if your opponent was using an engine?

I know that I can use my own software to do an analysis of the whole game, or walk through the game move by move and compare my opponent's move to the engine's top few choices, but I'm hoping there's an easier way to go about this problem.

Ultimately, I'm just looking for a rough sense of whether my opponent was probably using an engine.

Thoughts?

Much thanks in advance,

Babyferatu

Do like me...

If he beats you.. he's totally cheating.

If you beat him, he sucks and is not worth playing again.

It is oh so satisfying to be me.

therobz wrote:

Run your engine at the same time, and compare his moves with your engines?

I can't tell if therobz is joking or not.  Just in case he isn't joking I have to say that's cheating.  I did get a chuckle out of his comment though so I think he is joking.

If you think your opponent is cheating the best way to find out is to report them.  Chess.com says they have a good system to catch cheaters.

pssst... if you dont want to play against a cheater...come a little closer... a little closer... play an OTB GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

My opinion is that you shouldn't sweat it.  Sure, there are other 'indicators' - like a career ratings graph that hovers around 1300 for 6 months and then shoots up to 2000 in a matter of weeks... or someone who plays like a 1400 until they are a piece down and then suddenly seem to be channeling Karpov.  But on their own, they don't prove anything.  If you become very suspicious of someone while playing, go ahead and report them.  If you become a little suspicious, just don't play them any more. 

But to do a computer post-mortem on your opponent's moves to see if they were cheating seems a bit much; even if it were a rewarding pastime, I doubt it would be very effective as a cheater-net.  What application(s) should you use?  How much agreement is too much?  What if your cheater is just using a computer to blunder-check?

There's been a lot of discussion on this topic.  I think the summary is that it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to be sure because your opponent might use the engine once or twice in the game to get the edge, and that can't be positively IDed as engine activity versus human brain activity. 

I've read forum conversation that chess.com staff runs some analysis on games to look for patterns that might be cheating, and takes appropriate action based on findings.

One thing I've learned from engine analyzing my own games is that you have to look at both side's moves before being suspicious that one side is using an engine.  I had one game in particular where I was quite proud that 3  of my moves in a row, that really turned the game, agreed with the engine's first choice.  I thought, wow, my opponent's gonna think I cheated.  Here's the catch.  My opponent made a positionally weak move just before that, that the engine didn't agree with, call it move 20.  I saw it and figured out how to take advantage of it.  So did the engine, of course.  So I make move 21, same move the engine would make.  My opponent see's the delema now too.  So both our next few moves agree with the engine's top choice.  It's too late though.  The die was cast at his move 20 and he comes out of it losing. 

Now a person on the losing side of that situation could look at a post-game engine analysis and only look at his opponent's moves and conclude something like, "we were close then bam, bam, bam, three engine moves in a row and I'm losing."  Thing is it was the prior weak move that made it easy for both humans and engine to agree on the next several moves.

Agreed DeepGreene, I am not really worried about it - rather was just curious whether there was any simple technique to give a binary-gate sense (i.e. "yes/no") after the fact.

If, as I assume, some online chess servers/sites use tools to flag games as questionable, then what I'm really looking for is the same tool/process to give me piece of mind that I was whipped by flesh and not silicon.

Considering the infinity of options and reports built into most chess software and database tools, I'm sort of hoping there's a "Check game for human play" feature out there.

You really should just chill out. Your ego is too much involved in the game. Can you put a band-aid on your ouchie just because a computer cracked you in the head. How about making a forum for how to have fun playing chess and not worry about who beat you. Worry instead about if you played quality chess yourself and make sure you are actually having FUN playing this game. You will LOSE so many games you won't know where to find a database big enough. We are chessplayers and that is what we do, we lose a lot and win a lot. DROP IT!! Focus on enjoying chess and not just having an emotionally comfortable loss. If your ego is that fragile, chess is definitely the WRONG game for you.

I agree with people who say don't worry about it too much.

I had only one game where I thought the person might be cheating.  I had been on this site regularly for just a few weeks.  I get an invite out of the blue.  No open seek on my part.  Person spoke limited English and didn't have much explanation on how they chose me, "I love chess and take on all players," or similar.  He had been on the site for just a few months, his rating was steadily rising, and he'd won most or all of his 10 or 20 games in the archives, I can't remember exactly.  An engine analysis of several of their games left the engine without much advice to give.  But I figured, what the heck, should be interesting.  He's rated 1800.  I'm rated 10000.  I lose maybe 15 rating points if I lose.  In limited conversation during the game I concluded he's just a good chess player that came on the site at the mandatory 1200 rating.  It was just a feeling I got that he was a regular person and not cheating.

Here's the thing.  Whatever the situation really was, I enjoyed the game and learned a lot.

If my opponent is using an computer to check his/her moves, that is his/her problem.

Regardless of who makes the moves, I need to figure out a winning strategy and execute and if I am playing a computer, then, theoretically, my game should become more sound if I analyze where I went wrong.

Now I do think that in one game in particular and maybe two, my opponent quite likely did use help as there was a complete change in the tempo and the use of pieces during the game. However, when I look back at those losses, I still think that I had a superior position at some point in the game and I failed to successfully prosecute the position to the end.

The best way to do anything in life is to see what you can do better and not worry about what the other person did. If you did not win, it was your play that failed you. There are no other factors that you control. Good luck and good games.

Munchies wrote:

You really should just chill out.

Munchies, if I was any more chilled out I would be dead.  You have supremely missed my point, despite my elaborating that it's not a big deal and was merely curious.

Unless, of course, that your comment was meant as farce - sometimes I'm not very good at spotting that

When it comes down to it, there is little we can do to avoid cheaters (that i know of). We can always "report abuse" of those we strongly suspect, we can compare moves with strong engines etc.

But the question in general is certainly a fair one. All those people who say "chill out, don't worry about it man.. it doesn't matter" etc... I wonder about you.

If we did find a way to detect cheaters... would you worry about it then? Would you ignore the tool? I think we all think about it from time to time.

Enjoy online chess for what it is... convenient chess that is readily available to the just and unjust alike. And thank heavens for it.

you said you needed peace of mind that you were beaten by flesh and not silicon. i guess my question is why does it matter? When i said chill out, it was more referring to just relaxing and enjoying chess. it seems to me you are more concerned with who you lost to then why, and more importantly just taking away from the enjoyment of the game. you may find your mind at ease if you just focus on your own moves and improving.

I think the real question that the cheat-hunters should ask themselves is why they are so paranoid about cheating. It takes so much of the focus off of the game and onto trivial matters. It will be next to impossible to detect cheaters who do not make blatant use of the computer. Partial assist players will be the biggest problem, due to the fluctuation. I myself am beginning to worry about playing online when I start studying hard and getting better. How many of my opponents will start crying cheater cheater once I start laying down some quality move sequences? It makes me think that online playing may not be the place I want to play. Playing OTB or with friends online is really the only way to keep chess clean. It just seems like we waste a lot of energy thinking about those miserable cheats that we could be channelling into more positive avenues like chess study. The cheaters will not stop so maybe it is best if we allocate our time to activities that make us happier than grumbling about cheaters.

I think that you shouldnt be able to download the PGN while the game is in play. It doesnt mean that it will stop any cheating but it will make it somewhat more difficult.

Blunder checking with an engine is cheating.

I think that Chess.com is rife with players making use of engines, especially in the lower levels. I dont think they use the engine the entire game, I think its primarily mid game when the options get a little complicated.

Recently I have been drilled by some brilliant (or so I percieve) moves pulled off by players ranking in at 1400, this is especially obvious when I am in a superior position and they manage to rip the carpet out from under my feet.

Either way I play. Ill play them. Ill play their computer, its all one happy learning curve but its not nice to drop 30 or so points when some tosser switches on the machine and chops my legs off.

Jayded wrote:

I think that Chess.com is rife with players making use of engines, especially in the lower levels.

Interesting...  I always reckoned that most of the consistent cheaters weighed in above 1800.  What's the point of using an engine if you can't pull yourself above 1500?

Another online-chess-cheater prejudice I've held (again, based on nothing at all by way of real evidence) is that they are attracted to tournaments.

I could be completely off the mark.

Fluctuations are normal in chess too, one must keep this in mind. When I lived in Utah, I used to play OTB with one National Master and one Expert in various time controls. I was rated around 1350 in the USCF system at the time, but I was putting a lot of my time toward chess. The Master used to give me a hard time because he said I confused him. To paraphrase, he basically told me that he didn't understand how I could find some really strong moves without much time expenditure, but in the same game I could spend an inordinate amount of time on a 'trivial' move. Remember that this was a game at a coffeeshop, not an online game. It is not out of the ordinary for players to hit a patch of good moves, or find a strong sequence, even after they may have just played a sub-par opening. I remember an old chess player in Chicago's chess park who was very strong. He was pushing me all over the board, and had what looked like a completely won position. I'll never forget the way he looked at me in disgust as I looked at the board and muttered with much venom ... 'new game?'. How could I not see how fantastic his position was and just resign to his greatness?? Instead of 'new game', he found himself on the receiving end of a multipiece sac culminating in mate. It was one heck of an upset victory... but the board does not allow us to lie. If a saving resource is on the board, it is on the board, and that does not create a cheater. Does it look suspicious, sure! But let's not be too quick to label strong play, even if only a brief shot, cheating.

Munchies wrote:

Fluctuations are normal in chess too, one must keep this in mind. When I lived in Utah, I used to play OTB with one National Master and one Expert in various time controls. I was rated around 1350 in the USCF system at the time, but I was putting a lot of my time toward chess. The Master used to give me a hard time because he said I confused him. To paraphrase, he basically told me that he didn't understand how I could find some really strong moves without much time expenditure, but in the same game I could spend an inordinate amount of time on a 'trivial' move. Remember that this was a game at a coffeeshop, not an online game. It is not out of the ordinary for players to hit a patch of good moves, or find a strong sequence, even after they may have just played a sub-par opening. I remember an old chess player in Chicago's chess park who was very strong. He was pushing me all over the board, and had what looked like a completely won position. I'll never forget the way he looked at me in disgust as I looked at the board and muttered with much venom ... 'new game?'. How could I not see how fantastic his position was and just resign to his greatness?? Instead of 'new game', he found himself on the receiving end of a multipiece sac culminating in mate. It was one heck of an upset victory... but the board does not allow us to lie. If a saving resource is on the board, it is on the board, and that does not create a cheater. Does it look suspicious, sure! But let's not be too quick to label strong play, even if only a brief shot, cheating.

Was the master you used to play Jeff Phillips by any chance?

Munchies wrote:

to his greatness?? Instead of 'new game', he found himself on the receiving end of a multipiece sac culminating in mate. It was one heck of an upset victory... but the board does not allow us to lie. If a saving resource is on the board, it is on the board, and that does not create a cheater. Does it look suspicious, sure! But let's not be too quick to label strong play, even if only a brief shot, cheating.

Way to go!  That's why mate is the end of the game.  Oh and proof of cheaters?  If you outplay them they should go into computer suicide, right?

It wasn't Jeff Phillips on that occasion. If he's the guys I'm thinking of though, I did play a pair of blitz games with Jeff and he curbed stomped me so hard. I was Santa Clause, giving crap up left and right.