Funny, how people play top engine moves after they blunder away a piece

This guy plays engine top 30 moves after blundering his queen, thank god he started cheating after the position could not be recovered and I won anyway. He went from making wild mistakes to forcing my queen to block f8.

Most telling in this game is 54: Rc2+ and 39: f4

In before the lock.

And for what it is worth, your premise is not supported by the facts.

Like they would have time to setup the board and start cheating at that time control in the first place.

54.Rc2+ is not the engine's move.

Neither is 39.f4

Neither are most of the moves he played after losing the queen.

As usual, cheating accusations aren't only dumb but can't even get the basic facts right.

They aren't top moves on high depth, but no one is going to have their engine take 30-45 seconds to calculate each move in a blitz game. Setting your engine to a 2k rating and you'll see that Rc2+ and f4 are recommended, even the free analysis (roughly 2k ELO) shows this.

Also, I still won the game. 2k ELO isn't sufficient to beat a 1300 while down a queen. It's a simply a cheesy way to try to win on time (stall me) or hope I blunder.

Both move 39 F4 and move 53: Rc2+ are highlighted in green as "best move" in free analysis (2k ELO). You're to free to verify this yourself using the Free Analysis tool, or any other chess engine degraded to 1.9k-2.1k ELO

And of course cheating is how he maintains his lofty rating of 1184.

Just look at that game bro. I can link you countless games (that I won) where my opponents go into Bobby Fischer Mode after blundering. The problem is that they usually cheat too late into the game (they don't realize their already in a lost position).

He played like an sub 1k player up to and including losing his queen, and then started to play like a 1900-2100 rated player after losing his queen. Thus, he's 1184 rated.

This is actually VERY common in my bracket, whether or not you want to believe it.

Why do his move speeds vary so much then?

Just struggling to see what he would get out of it.

I don't have a UCI with such features.

At least in 3|0 I think I'd score >50% against a 1200ish player after sacing my queen for a piece early in the game.

But yeah, 3|2 would be harder.

I've experienced the same problem. I'm completely outplaying my opponent, having material advantage and the attacking chances. My opponent usually goes for a 2-3 mins "think" and then start playing the best move in ~8 seconds. No matter if its the only move available in the position (ie: moving from a check), it always takes the same amount of time. 

This site is just unplayable because of the amount of these cheaters. BYE CHESS.COM, you always sucked.

If you twiddle the knobs on an engine enough times, you can probably get it to spit out any move that doesn't lose on the spot. You can't accuse people of cheating for playing any move seen by any engine.

Also, why would they cheat in order to lose to you? How good do you think you are? Like, if they WERE playing with an engine after - say - hanging a knight.....you would lose. Stockfish with knight odds will annihilate you 100 games out of 100, so don't lie to yourself and say "I'm so good, I beat Stockfish every game!" 

Shortest distance between two points: Dude blundered, dude tried harder, dude lost because he's down material. End of story. 

Why does every move he makes match "best move" with 2k ELO engine and chess.com free analysis?

My answer to your question is quite simple though, he knew the engine was giving him moves that were not improving his chances of winning (since his position was already hopeless), so he may have been frustrated and looking to manually alter the sequence to either make a fortress or fool me into a blunder.

In roughly 75% of my games opponents will gracefully resign. Of that 25%, another half of those will attempt to play it out for another 6-10 ply to exploit any possible counterplay or compensation they may have gained from their loss (without initially knowing it) before resigning (or discovering that they had enough compensation and continuing)...but then there's that other half of this 25% (1/8 of the games) where people play REALLY BAD (200 to 300 points under their stated rating) but then play REALLY GOOD (2k+) after a blunder.

Two of my queen sac odds games, one is 3|0 the other 5|0  (yeah I had to win on time, but the end positions are a draw, and the other extremely difficult for black to win with best play).

I've played a few others, but they'd be hard for me to find.

https://www.chess.com/live/game/3342930983

https://www.chess.com/live/game/3342914272

 I think I'm a 1300 player.

I think I can beat Stockfish with Queen odds in a 3 minute format by simply developing my pieces and closing the position. I'll win on time or Stockfish will blunder under time pressure to open the position.

Case in point, run the Free Analysis tool. Match every move he makes after queen blunder to the 2k ELO free analysis. You can very easily run this experiment yourself with three clicks (click link to my game, click analysis, click Free Analysis).

I lose to experts when they're drunk, down material, up material, in positions they love, positions they hate, and everywhere else. They're rated 2000 because they kick the crap out of class players, not because they found 800 rating points in a cracker jack box. RESPECT your opponents.

Oh, and this thread will be locked, and you'll get some kind of warning from the mods for wasting their time AND trying to besmirch the good name of a well meaning patzer whose only crime was playing on after hanging the queen.

Maybe he's just better than you.

Okay so after queen is won.

Nxe2 only reasonable move.

Bxe4 analysis second best move.

Nd4 second best move (just moving his knight to a safe square).

Kh1 only reasonable move.

Nxd4 and cxd4 it says are equal, only two moves, actually preferred cx at the speed he played it.

Rf7 not played by engine.

So we have the first that’s not a forcing move differing.

Nf3 not a top choice.

Rxg7 it’s attacked and you get a pawn.

Kg1 it likes the rook moves better.

Re1 logical move never considered by computer analysis. Therefore theory disproven.

Yeah not convinced

You have to mess with the contempt value to get an engine to play a really tough odds game. Otherwise it will mindlessly trade down into an endgame that's really easy for you to win. I beat stockfish with knight odds like that... sure it won a few games at first, but then it played some french exchange structure where we just traded everything down into an endgame and I won easily.

Also you weren't up a whole queen in your game, just a queen for a rook (ok, that's still winning, but not the same as queen odds).

Also I posted two blitz games of me winning with Q for N odds in 3|0 and 5|0. Sure I don't expect to win every game I play like this, but maybe it would be harder for you than you think.

 If you look through most of my 30+ move games, you'll see I make a lot of Knight or Bishop Sacs on the g and h pawns to rip open the position (even if post analysis reveals it's a blunder/mistake). In these games, the moment the gambit fails (if successfully defended), I will continue playing because I know my opponent's continued defense still requires near perfect play even though I'm down a piece.

Now again, look at my losses where I resigned in under 10 moves...obviously I blundered and knew that I could not win against an equal opponent after blundering the opening (unless he himself blunders harder).

Also the difference in your games and the game I posted in the OP is that may victory was apparent and very easy to execute. Any honest 1300ish player would simply resign in his position, yourself included.

In your games the position was complicated enough to fight it out.

It's a giant red flag when people DONT resign in those lost positions btw. I'm always going to run those games through quick analysis even after I win. If the analysis shows that I did NOT miss any opportunities to win faster and that my opponent played the best possible move afterwards (best possible move by an engine configured to make fast moves), I have to assume, that they are cheating.

It's true that losing material later in the game is more destructive to a position.

As for resigning, I tend to do that pretty late in blitz games. If I'm upset then I might even play to the end just out of spite.

I resign in lost positions because I'm a salty &*#$, but a huge number of my opponents fight on in lost positions. I frequently have people force me to trade to R&K vs K before they resign (and many of them make me checkmate them). It feels disrespectful, but it's not against the rules, and it's certainly not cheating. 

In 2008, Monika Socko refused to accept a draw against Sabina Foisor in a BOOK DRAWN endgame.....Socko had more time and flagged Sabina out of the tournament. One of the filthiest points ever taken. Filthy or not, it counts as a point. Your opponent has every right to continue to fight for that point as long as it doesn't violate the rules.