because my role model is capablanca*\0/*
First of all, I am not a cheater and I have never used an engine during a chess game.
But this thread has helped me a lot to understand somthing important for myself. (Thank you for creating this topic, Evil Chess.)
What I was thinking often before I have read this (or linked) thread/s to this topic is that
IF I would have cheated during my development, it could have significantly improved my game.
eg. in the opening phase. Sometimes I thought, that I would even lack behind in development, not utilizing engines.
But now there are at least 3 arguments, that I have admittedly not really considered before reading this thread and they speak for my behaviour not having given in to cheat one single time not even for improving my game. I am even glad that I resisted.
So with the following arguments, let's refute my hypothesis that cheating could improve my own chess openings.
1.) People who cheated have stated that actually it has deteriorated their game in the long run.
They would not train enough how to calculate properly on their own, as they always had the engine on their side and avoided calculating for example easy blunders of themselves or their opponents. Although every proper Chess player knows "Checks, Captures, Threads" and would not easily forget this principle, it may be another thing to have it incorporated and steadily trained. It should be the best way to train this aspect without an engine.
2.) Some of the players even developed an unhealthy doubt about their own or the opponents moves. Some said that they have started to question EVERY of their own thoughts and moves and ended in confusion. These people stated that they became largely inconfident while playing without engine from time to time. While a healthy portion of doubt can be beneficial, these players have been led to absolute confusion, because they had little interest in finding out "why or when" they should doubt moves. So I would say depending on the person behind the board there could be a large negative psychiological effect.
3.) There are legal and better alternatives online. (I am not bringing "human" suggestions here, like having Chess-Coaches, being a member of Chess-Teams and watching Online-Courses which can be beneficial as well). There are a lot of programs in the internet, which effectively CAN make you and your opening stronger and I have leaned to interpret these outcomes for myself and incorporate these post-game-suggestions of the engines in my own game. Some programs can even evaluate your games and are designed to find the biggest weaknesses for you. All this in just some seconds. I am sometimes ignoring the suggestions as I really like to play certain inaccurate openings but it is fun and motivating to get to know your own style of playing chess this way. That leads to the conclusion that utilizing these programs is even a more effective approach than utilizing engines during the game - which are naturally not designed to interpret your games, weaknesses or your style at all.
Conclusion for myself: I think that these factors depend somewhat on the person behind the board, but I know myself and I think that I would have experienced the same, perhaps even worse and that it would have potentially led to quitting chess. Thank Caissa, that I have never done so.
But this thread has helped me a lot to understand somthing important for myself. (Thank you for creating this topic, Evil Chess.)
What I was thinking often before I have read this (or linked) thread/s to this topic is that
IF I would have cheated during my development, it could have significantly improved my game.
eg. in the opening phase. Sometimes I thought, that I would even lack behind in development, not utilizing engines.
But now there are at least 3 arguments, that I have admittedly not really considered before reading this thread and they speak for my behaviour not having given in to cheat one single time not even for improving my game. I am even glad that I resisted.
So with the following arguments, let's refute my hypothesis that cheating could improve my own chess openings.
1.) People who cheated have stated that actually it has deteriorated their game in the long run.
They would not train enough how to calculate properly on their own, as they always had the engine on their side and avoided calculating for example easy blunders of themselves or their opponents. Although every proper Chess player knows "Checks, Captures, Threads" and would not easily forget this principle, it may be another thing to have it incorporated and steadily trained. It should be the best way to train this aspect without an engine.
2.) Some of the players even developed an unhealthy doubt about their own or the opponents moves. Some said that they have started to question EVERY of their own thoughts and moves and ended in confusion. These people stated that they became largely inconfident while playing without engine from time to time. While a healthy portion of doubt can be beneficial, these players have been led to absolute confusion, because they had little interest in finding out "why or when" they should doubt moves. So I would say depending on the person behind the board there could be a large negative psychiological effect.
3.) There are legal and better alternatives online. (I am not bringing "human" suggestions here, like having Chess-Coaches, being a member of Chess-Teams and watching Online-Courses which can be beneficial as well). There are a lot of programs in the internet, which effectively CAN make you and your opening stronger and I have leaned to interpret these outcomes for myself and incorporate these post-game-suggestions of the engines in my own game. Some programs can even evaluate your games and are designed to find the biggest weaknesses for you. All this in just some seconds. I am sometimes ignoring the suggestions as I really like to play certain inaccurate openings but it is fun and motivating to get to know your own style of playing chess this way. That leads to the conclusion that utilizing these programs is even a more effective approach than utilizing engines during the game - which are naturally not designed to interpret your games, weaknesses or your style at all.
Conclusion for myself: I think that these factors depend somewhat on the person behind the board, but I know myself and I think that I would have experienced the same, perhaps even worse and that it would have potentially led to quitting chess. Thank Caissa, that I have never done so.
Cheaters are basically the bad guys of chess. They wax and twirl their mustaches, laugh like Mark Hamill doing Joker impressions or Vincent Price doing "Thriller," and regard chess-cheating as a mere first step in fiendish plans to rule the world. As SGSchool1 pointed out above, they are all possessed by a little guy with a red suit, horns, and a tail.
@TkzonKy said in #23:
> Some said that they have started to question EVERY of their own thoughts and moves and ended in confusion.
That's some Tell-Tale Heart karma right there.
> Some said that they have started to question EVERY of their own thoughts and moves and ended in confusion.
That's some Tell-Tale Heart karma right there.
yes thanks @TkzonKy . Indeed, there are free and paid services which will help one to understand chess (example below), but the engine by itself does not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2BxLimtxw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2BxLimtxw
The increasing prevalence of cheating in a game - a game, with no lives or livelihood at stake - is a marker for how narcissistic and amoral the world has become. If you are under the age of 35 you won't understand what I'm saying at all, because the current state of humanity seems "normal" to you - you grew up in a degenerate world where concepts like ethics, morals, good character, a good name and reputation, and other priceless facets of human life are lost relics of a bygone era.
@toxic_internet said in #27:
> The increasing prevalence of cheating in a game - a game, with no lives or livelihood at stake - is a marker for how narcissistic and amoral the world has become. If you are under the age of 35 you won't understand what I'm saying at all, because the current state of humanity seems "normal" to you - you grew up in a degenerate world where concepts like ethics, morals, good character, a good name and reputation, and other priceless facets of human life are lost relics of a bygone era.
I disagree with you on that. Cheating has always happened. And in online chess it was happening in 1998 on Yahoo Chess. The engines weren't as good as they are now, but they were good enough.
It occurs not just in chess but all aspects. I question how online bridge sites handle it - there you have two players playing as partners who are not allowed to communicate with each other, and back in the 1950s Terence Reese and Boris Schapiro were accused of doing just that in a Bermuda Bowl in Argentina - so yes, way back in the 1950s - with some kind of signalling system, but put two bridge partners online and so easy to have a messaging system between them. No hopeless slams, perfect defences..
Give people an opportunity to cheat easily and not get caught and they will, and always have.
For chess, the only real answers are OTB or Hybrid, but enjoy playing what is essentially "casually" on this and other sites (even if the games are rated) because most of the time you won't be playing against a cheat.
> The increasing prevalence of cheating in a game - a game, with no lives or livelihood at stake - is a marker for how narcissistic and amoral the world has become. If you are under the age of 35 you won't understand what I'm saying at all, because the current state of humanity seems "normal" to you - you grew up in a degenerate world where concepts like ethics, morals, good character, a good name and reputation, and other priceless facets of human life are lost relics of a bygone era.
I disagree with you on that. Cheating has always happened. And in online chess it was happening in 1998 on Yahoo Chess. The engines weren't as good as they are now, but they were good enough.
It occurs not just in chess but all aspects. I question how online bridge sites handle it - there you have two players playing as partners who are not allowed to communicate with each other, and back in the 1950s Terence Reese and Boris Schapiro were accused of doing just that in a Bermuda Bowl in Argentina - so yes, way back in the 1950s - with some kind of signalling system, but put two bridge partners online and so easy to have a messaging system between them. No hopeless slams, perfect defences..
Give people an opportunity to cheat easily and not get caught and they will, and always have.
For chess, the only real answers are OTB or Hybrid, but enjoy playing what is essentially "casually" on this and other sites (even if the games are rated) because most of the time you won't be playing against a cheat.
If you ever know about "game theory", the first thing a game theorist assumes is that everyone is selfish and does not want to lose. We can assume from a game theory point of view that everyone is a cheater. That is the Nash equilibrium of this scenario is that everyone has to cheat or risk losing the game, and rating points. The dominant strategy is to always cheat. But now there is some risk because you can get banned. Creating a new account can be a pain, so maybe this increases the risk on the side of cheaters, so you can say it would dissuade someone from cheating, but then again, the fact that many cheaters do not get caught. Plus, the fact that it is not hard to create a new account and be back on the site cheating again. However, there could be people using the site to improve their skill to play OTB where cheating is very difficult to get away with, and the penalties come with much higher risk. So, they might play normal for that reason. Other people might play normal because they ideologically think cheating is bad, and wrong. But when you consider these things, you realize that many people cheat, and many people do not cheat. To eliminate cheating is to increase the penalty and risk for cheating, and the likelihood they will get caught cheating. You won't totally eliminate it, but you will reduce it significantly to the point where most people would not notice if they played a cheater or a really good player. Nor would they care because they don't face them often enough for cheaters to make a negative impact on their rating. Right now, it is a plague because of the ease to cheat, the unlikelihood that they will get caught, and the simplicity of creating a new account and returning back to the site ruining the game of chess again in only a few minutes. So, for that reason, I will say there are a lot of cheaters on this site, but to me it doesn't seem like they outnumber the legit players yet.
@earlpurple said in #28:
> I disagree with you on that. Cheating has always happened. And in online chess it was happening in 1998 on Yahoo Chess. The engines weren't as good as they are now, but they were good enough.
>
> It occurs not just in chess but all aspects. I question how online bridge sites handle it - there you have two players playing as partners who are not allowed to communicate with each other, and back in the 1950s Terence Reese and Boris Schapiro were accused of doing just that in a Bermuda Bowl in Argentina - so yes, way back in the 1950s - with some kind of signalling system, but put two bridge partners online and so easy to have a messaging system between them. No hopeless slams, perfect defences..
>
> Give people an opportunity to cheat easily and not get caught and they will, and always have.
>
> For chess, the only real answers are OTB or Hybrid, but enjoy playing what is essentially "casually" on this and other sites (even if the games are rated) because most of the time you won't be playing against a cheat.
You are free to believe whatever makes you feel better, and to rationalize it however you wish. I was playing on Yahoo chess back then, too, and cheating was never remotely close to what it is, today. Cheating two years ago was never as bad as it is, today. The practice is a symptom of a world that is rotting at its core. I understand you don't want to believe that, but it doesn't matter what you believe. Reality trumps all self-delusions: you exist in a dying world.
> I disagree with you on that. Cheating has always happened. And in online chess it was happening in 1998 on Yahoo Chess. The engines weren't as good as they are now, but they were good enough.
>
> It occurs not just in chess but all aspects. I question how online bridge sites handle it - there you have two players playing as partners who are not allowed to communicate with each other, and back in the 1950s Terence Reese and Boris Schapiro were accused of doing just that in a Bermuda Bowl in Argentina - so yes, way back in the 1950s - with some kind of signalling system, but put two bridge partners online and so easy to have a messaging system between them. No hopeless slams, perfect defences..
>
> Give people an opportunity to cheat easily and not get caught and they will, and always have.
>
> For chess, the only real answers are OTB or Hybrid, but enjoy playing what is essentially "casually" on this and other sites (even if the games are rated) because most of the time you won't be playing against a cheat.
You are free to believe whatever makes you feel better, and to rationalize it however you wish. I was playing on Yahoo chess back then, too, and cheating was never remotely close to what it is, today. Cheating two years ago was never as bad as it is, today. The practice is a symptom of a world that is rotting at its core. I understand you don't want to believe that, but it doesn't matter what you believe. Reality trumps all self-delusions: you exist in a dying world.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.