Harder to Cheat at Chess 960

Why do you have a problem with people being anonymous on the internet? @Sacmaniac

This isn't about you, @kaotic99 although you might think everything is. Remember, this post was about asking a question about cheat detection in Chess 960 and my opinion on the good work Lichess.org is doing in regards to this.

The fact that I need to spell it out and break it down like a fraction says so much about your degree of envy. And I can only speculate why.

Do you just need to win?

Why do you turn my question about cheating in 960 into an accusation and your opinion on me personally?

Telling me it's not a good look, good grief I'm dealing with a child.

Post your real name and let others decide who has the better look.

But you won't do that. Instead you will pick apart everything I say line by line and word by word and talk in a circle and not address anything I say. Continue this is fun.

Your strawman arguments are not that strong, in fact i find them pretty pathetic. Now why should I post my real name? Is my name somehow a fact? Does it matter who I am? No. Is my name a factor at all in this discussion? No, it ain't. I don't understand why ones name has anything to do with the discussion but it seems you think it does. You should try following peoples arguments rather than their name or standing on the internet. Cause arguements matter, standings does not.

@kaotic99 said in #13:

You're taking this onto a tangent now. OP's point about anonymity is not a personal accusation or a base for an argument. As has been already stated, this forum page was made commenting on cheat detection on 960. No need to go at each others' throats for arguing about arguments.

As far as I can see, you accused me of being a suck up, so what's your proof of this, explain yourself? What is brownnosing? Define why you think I'm a brownnoser?

The reason why names are important is so that you can stand accountable for your words. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Go back and look over my original post and remember you are the one that commented to it. I wasn't being argumentative, just stating some facts and opinions.

For those new, here's the story...Lichess awarded me some points unsolicited and I was happy about that because I did indeed remember the game and felt they played extremely directly and well in the end game. However I didn't feel there was any evidence to prove it and didn't pursue it further.

Then to my delight Lichess contacted me and told me they had awarded me 7 rating points and I was pleased with that and I wanted to show the hard working volunteers at Lichess.org that I appreciate their diligence because losing to cheaters sucks. Then I had a question about cheating in Chess 960.

Then @kaotic99 took offence to that and somehow imagined me being obsequious in order to get some browny points from anonymous mods.

I really don't understand your reasoning. However you are behaving exactly how I'd expect you to behave based on the previous comments.

So @kaotic99 what's your endgame strategy? This is turning into a draw by three-fold repetition and doesn't seem to be any way to explain logic and its just attention you crave, even if negative.

You've shown reasonable discourse is out of the question. Is there any way to please you?

@Sacmaniac said in #12:

This isn't about you, @kaotic99 although you might think everything is. Remember, this post was about asking a question about cheat detection in Chess 960 and my opinion on the good work Lichess.org is doing in regards to this.
The fact that I need to spell it out and break it down like a fraction says so much about your degree of envy. And I can only speculate why.
Do you just need to win?
Why do you turn my question about cheating in 960 into an accusation and your opinion on me personally?
Telling me it's not a good look, good grief I'm dealing with a child.
Post your real name and let others decide who has the better look.
But you won't do that. Instead you will pick apart everything I say line by line and word by word and talk in a circle and not address anything I say. Continue this is fun.
I would expect that making a program to play chess moves would be easier and more effective in 960.
My apologies to you for some of the forum members, vicious comments and false accusations seem to have become more prevalent recently.

Why exactly @Nomoreusernames do you think it would be easier?

The more I think about it the more it would be more difficult for two reasons.

It would be hard to play perfect moves from the very start of the game because there are no opening theory based on the starting configurations.

And, if a person castles later in the game it would be harder.

In other words if I was cheating in 960 I would have to wait till my opponent castled in order to set up the position. Or is there something I'm missing?

@Sacmaniac said in #17:

Why exactly @Nomoreusernames do you think it would be easier?
The more I think about it the more it would be more difficult for two reasons.
It would be hard to play perfect moves from the very start of the game because there are no opening theory based on the starting configurations.
And, if a person castles later in the game it would be harder.
In other words if I was cheating in 960 I would have to wait till my opponent castled in order to set up the position. Or is there something I'm missing?
No opening data base, plus the opponent would have negligible intuition about typical positions. So you could probably get better results at lower depth with 960, but I think this wouldn't easily get past cheat detection anyway. I don't think I have ever played against a cheater on this site, good to know that they are detecting potential cheaters. Hopefully that last sentence doesn't trigger the people practicing the "brownnose" insult, because they really scare me.

cheating is ez:

• put in beads
• connect cable from anus to computer
• load SF
• dont mind the occasional electric tingling, youll get used to it

warning: for 960 you need a different cable!

This is kind of related but barely. I was watching Hikura on the Lex Fridman podcast recently and he claimed the only information he'd need to cheat is either one buzz or two. In fact he wouldn't even need that. All he would need to know is if there was something in the position to be aware of.

If he knew there was something to be found in the position he could devote the time to pause and figure it out.

At his level of super grandmastery they don't need the actual coordinates of the move, just that there is something that is either good or bad about the position. It's very binary.

The concept of anal beads is just Elon trolling.

It would be far easier for a spectator or someone in the same room with access to an engine that would merely need to raise an eyebrow or some kind of innocuous sign from the sidelines.

The James Bond device is not going to be located on Hans person per say, but he would most likely be in collusion with a confederate or two, if he was indeed cheating, which hasn't been determined conclusively for that tournament with Magnus.

If I was to speculate I think there is more to Magnus quitting than Hans. Maybe Hans was just a plausible excuse. Something about Rex's opinion on the matter should be scrutinized more imo.

As far as cheating at 960 on lichess, it should be harder than for the standard classical starting configuration imo. That's the feel I have for it anyways. And the more I play 960 the more I feel Bobby Fischer was correct about it being the savior of chess. @Nomoreusernames @Rookitiki