(C)omputer (C)heating at Playchess

[Sean Evans]

This thread proves to me the continued ignorance about computer cheating, I have been playing chess against computers on and off since 1990, I know when I am playing against one. I am speaking directly with a Sysop at Playchess, I will be interested to see if he comes to the same conclusion as I did -:)

Cordially,

Sean

[Sean Evans]

DOCTOR UNCLEAR

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Realm/8 ... in_ENG.htm

[Eizenhammer]

DOCTOR UNCLEAR

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Realm/8 ... in_ENG.htm

wow, this is basically from 1997, and one cannot see who wrote it (or can one?), probably a 1200 rating player, who feels he gets destroyed much more often than he deserves ... sounds familiar

[Sean Evans]

DOCTOR UNCLEAR

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Realm/8 ... in_ENG.htm

wow, this is basically from 1997, and one cannot see who wrote it (or can one?), probably a 1200 rating player, who feels he gets destroyed much more often than he deserves ... sounds familiar

Doctor Unclear was/is the Speed Trap at ICC.

[Stephen Ham]

Hi, I do notice the Playchess computer chess program detector does catch cheaters, but I had an obvious one, who played the opening like a God and tactics like a GM and Playchess never caught him. I reported it to the Admins and still nothing. Not hard to see the person was cheating:

1) Played opening like a God
2) Tactics like a GM
3) Used very little time to make moves
4) At SLOW time controls player loses to 1300 ELO players and consistently beats 1700+ level players

I quit playing, once I determined it was clearly a computer chess cheater, here is the game I played against this guy:

[Event "Rated game, 30m + 10s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2009.01.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sir Isaac Brock"]
[Black "Sleepwalker1392"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C68"]
[WhiteElo "1559"]
[BlackElo "1606"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[EventDate "2009.01.24"]
[TimeControl "1800+10"]

1. e4 {3} e5 {3} 2. Nf3 {8} Nc6 {5} 3. Bb5 {15} a6 {13} 4. Bxc6 {7} dxc6 {5} 5.
O-O {11} Bg4 {10} 6. h3 {9} h5 {16} 7. d3 {27} Qf6 {12} 8. Nbd2 {18} Ne7 {13}
9. Re1 {26} Ng6 {14} 10. d4 {37} Bd6 {3} 11. hxg4 {41} hxg4 {4} 12. Nh2 {18}
Rxh2 {3} 13. Qxg4 {39} Qh4 {3} 14. Qxh4 {31} Rxh4 {3} 15. Nf3 {22} Rh8 {3} 16.
dxe5 {50} Nxe5 {60} 17. Ng5 {106} Ke7 {44} 18. b3 {91} f6 {33} 19. Nh3 {14}
Rxh3 {26} 20. gxh3 {35} Nf3+ {3} 21. Kf1 {8} Nxe1 {1} 22. Kxe1 {11} Rh8 {2} 23.
Bb2 {16} Rh4 {23} 24. f3 {24} Rxh3 {Sleepwalker1392 claims win on disconnect
Sleepwalker1392 claims win on disconnect Sleepwalker1392 claims win on
disconnect Time (Lag: Av=0.60s, max=2.1s) 22} 0-1

Hi Sean,

Please take no offense but I have a different opinion on this matter.

1) You claim that your opponent played the opening like a god. However, you both played a well-known mainline opening, and he was the first to deviate from theory, not you (15...Rh5 is what my books recommend). So perhaps you knew more about opening theory than he did. Therefore, he should be the one to question you, right? I'm not insinuating anything, Sean. Instead, neither of you are gods and your basis for questioning his opening knowledge is better applied to yourself. And I don't see anything inhuman about the rest of his play either, but that's just me.

2) Even if he's using outside help (e.g. computer, books, a friend, etc.), so what? There's no money involved so presumably you're just playing for fun and/or education. Right? At least, that's my attitude. I only play online when I have time and I'm just looking for a good game. Period.

3) I know that many dislike playing against computers. OK, but where is the enjoyment for the computer user? Surely that gets dull quickly and there's zero money involved. Also, there's no ego either, since we don't use our real names. But then, perhaps I'm just naive.

I'll relate an experience of mine. I'm a correspondence chess player with a 2500+ ICCF rating. I haven't played OTB for decades (no time!), so I recently tried online chess. I played at a number of sites but prefer the environment at Chess Cube. After a day of 5' chess, I quickly got my rating over 2300 (it's 2261 now). This is an excellent rating for me because as a correspondence player, I'm slow and methodical when analyzing. And I perform all my CC analysis with a wooden board, since I'm sloppy when looking at a 2D chess screen.

Long story short, I challenged IM Andrew Martin to a 5' game. He refused because, given my success, "you could be a computer!" I provided him with links as to who I am but he still refused, wanting nothing but 3' chess, or faster. OK, I respect that.

For me, 5' chess is too fast, given how slowly I'm used to analyzing my correspondence games. But that's what most want to play, so that's what I play. But, 3' is clearly too fast for me to even call chess. I can't enjoy that rapidity and the need to prioritize speed over quality, although I appreciate that others do. For me, there's no aesthetics in sloppiness and "give away". But I suppose others enjoy this, much as gamblers get an adrenaline rush from the element of chance.

The point is...we never played a game and instead just briefly conversed. Neither of us would budge. Apparently he didn't want to potentially lose rating points to a possible computer, while I see zero enjoyment in acclimating to a 2D screen for a game where my sloppiness provides no enjoyment. No problem...we both looked for different opponents and surely had our fun.

So, Sean, my advice is to just play chess for enjoyment at the time-control of your choice. If you meet a strong opponent, whether silicon-based or carbon-based, big deal! Enjoy the game and if you lose, then you can use the game as a base from which to learn and improve.

All the best,
Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

Hi, I do notice the Playchess computer chess program detector does catch cheaters, but I had an obvious one, who played the opening like a God and tactics like a GM and Playchess never caught him. I reported it to the Admins and still nothing. Not hard to see the person was cheating:

1) Played opening like a God
2) Tactics like a GM
3) Used very little time to make moves
4) At SLOW time controls player loses to 1300 ELO players and consistently beats 1700+ level players

I quit playing, once I determined it was clearly a computer chess cheater, here is the game I played against this guy:

[Event "Rated game, 30m + 10s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2009.01.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sir Isaac Brock"]
[Black "Sleepwalker1392"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C68"]
[WhiteElo "1559"]
[BlackElo "1606"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[EventDate "2009.01.24"]
[TimeControl "1800+10"]

1. e4 {3} e5 {3} 2. Nf3 {8} Nc6 {5} 3. Bb5 {15} a6 {13} 4. Bxc6 {7} dxc6 {5} 5.
O-O {11} Bg4 {10} 6. h3 {9} h5 {16} 7. d3 {27} Qf6 {12} 8. Nbd2 {18} Ne7 {13}
9. Re1 {26} Ng6 {14} 10. d4 {37} Bd6 {3} 11. hxg4 {41} hxg4 {4} 12. Nh2 {18}
Rxh2 {3} 13. Qxg4 {39} Qh4 {3} 14. Qxh4 {31} Rxh4 {3} 15. Nf3 {22} Rh8 {3} 16.
dxe5 {50} Nxe5 {60} 17. Ng5 {106} Ke7 {44} 18. b3 {91} f6 {33} 19. Nh3 {14}
Rxh3 {26} 20. gxh3 {35} Nf3+ {3} 21. Kf1 {8} Nxe1 {1} 22. Kxe1 {11} Rh8 {2} 23.
Bb2 {16} Rh4 {23} 24. f3 {24} Rxh3 {Sleepwalker1392 claims win on disconnect
Sleepwalker1392 claims win on disconnect Sleepwalker1392 claims win on
disconnect Time (Lag: Av=0.60s, max=2.1s) 22} 0-1

Hi Sean,

Please take no offense but I have a different opinion on this matter.

1) You claim that your opponent played the opening like a god. However, you both played a well-known mainline opening, and he was the first to deviate from theory, not you (15...Rh5 is what my books recommend). So perhaps you knew more about opening theory than he did. Therefore, he should be the one to question you, right? I'm not insinuating anything, Sean. Instead, neither of you are gods and your basis for questioning his opening knowledge is better applied to yourself. And I don't see anything inhuman about the rest of his play either, but that's just me.

2) Even if he's using outside help (e.g. computer, books, a friend, etc.), so what? There's no money involved so presumably you're just playing for fun and/or education. Right? At least, that's my attitude. I only play online when I have time and I'm just looking for a good game. Period.

3) I know that many dislike playing against computers. OK, but where is the enjoyment for the computer user? Surely that gets dull quickly and there's zero money involved. Also, there's no ego either, since we don't use our real names. But then, perhaps I'm just naive.

I'll relate an experience of mine. I'm a correspondence chess player with a 2500+ ICCF rating. I haven't played OTB for decades (no time!), so I recently tried online chess. I played at a number of sites but prefer the environment at Chess Cube. After a day of 5' chess, I quickly got my rating over 2300 (it's 2261 now). This is an excellent rating for me because as a correspondence player, I'm slow and methodical when analyzing. And I perform all my CC analysis with a wooden board, since I'm sloppy when looking at a 2D chess screen.

Long story short, I challenged IM Andrew Martin to a 5' game. He refused because, given my success, "you could be a computer!" I provided him with links as to who I am but he still refused, wanting nothing but 3' chess, or faster. OK, I respect that.

For me, 5' chess is too fast, given how slowly I'm used to analyzing my correspondence games. But that's what most want to play, so that's what I play. But, 3' is clearly too fast for me to even call chess. I can't enjoy that rapidity and the need to prioritize speed over quality, although I appreciate that others do. For me, there's no aesthetics in sloppiness and "give away". But I suppose others enjoy this, much as gamblers get an adrenaline rush from the element of chance.

The point is...we never played a game and instead just briefly conversed. Neither of us would budge. Apparently he didn't want to potentially lose rating points to a possible computer, while I see zero enjoyment in acclimating to a 2D screen for a game where my sloppiness provides no enjoyment. No problem...we both looked for different opponents and surely had our fun.

So, Sean, my advice is to just play chess for enjoyment at the time-control of your choice. If you meet a strong opponent, whether silicon-based or carbon-based, big deal! Enjoy the game and if you lose, then you can use the game as a base from which to learn and improve.

All the best,
Steve

There are no rules about using databases and opening books - so it is quite possible to play the opening like a God. If there are many more examples of a player playing like a God when out of book we will take action - one game is clearly not enough.

[Sean Evans]

There are no rules about using databases and opening books - so it is quite possible to play the opening like a God. If there are many more examples of a player playing like a God when out of book we will take action - one game is clearly not enough.

Who are you? And who are we?

[Graham Banks]

There are no rules about using databases and opening books - so it is quite possible to play the opening like a God. If there are many more examples of a player playing like a God when out of book we will take action - one game is clearly not enough.

Who are you? And who are we?

Harvey is a sysops at playchess.com.

[Terry McCracken]

There are no rules about using databases and opening books - so it is quite possible to play the opening like a God. If there are many more examples of a player playing like a God when out of book we will take action - one game is clearly not enough.

Who are you? And who are we?

Harvey is a sysops at playchess.com.

Opening books and databases is permissible cheating.

[Cubeman]

Cheating is doing something against the rules.If rules allow it then then that is o.k.This topic has cropped up on this forum many times, and I don't think there is a solution which will get it right 100% of the time.There are occasional cheats, compulsive cheats.One measure I suggested was for the servers to implement a tactical test every so often at random when a player is in between games.These tests also take into account the time taken to solve, so a cheat will be delayed in setting up the position on another board.If ther are any large descrepinces between actual rating and rating from test then that should ring alarm bells.The worst thing for me playing online is the idea that it is possible that my opponent is cheating.A bit like how Topalov felt when playing Kramnik.Believe me that 5 minute chess does not improve your long playing games.