1 or 2 moves won't determine a cheater. A blind squirrel can still find a nut. With more people prepping with examining engine moves they can start memorizing positions through repetition and instinctively play engine moves bc they've been learning them.
They might not remember why to put a bishop here or a knight there. I've even seen NM/GM streamers talk that way. They remember what they should play but can't calculate why.
A lot of these young NMs and GMs were basically raised off engine last 5 to 10 years depending on their training style.
Anyone young wanting to improve who loathes cheaters find 7 to 15 other honest players and play your own private tournaments for half your games. True if you're equal rating points are hard to come by BUT you're getting better and with honest competition.
Those of you under 16 above 1200 already should join small tournaments lead by NM/GM and you all pay them for some instruction.
Just make sure they are legitimate. There are more fake GMs than real ones lol.
I wouldn't claim this would be cheating just extra good play that was not normal for the opponent, I get suspicious when the positional character of the opponent's placement is so very perfect, that takes time and experience. There are many puzzles that would have this kind of move so anyone up on to that could find it, because you only have so many choices. Being a blitz game matters if the time is very short then it is a toss up is it a desperate dive or an aid?
rook f7 ? there is a name for that mate criss cross maybe
@drSabrotna said in #11:
> A lot of these young NMs and GMs were basically raised off engine last 5 to 10 years depending on their training style.
I love how its either NM or GM. no CMs FMs or IMs
@the_puzzles said in #14:
> I love how its either NM or GM. no CMs FMs or IMs
Just omitted. In other words a lot of highly rated players these days were raised on engines. You can't determine a cheater off 2 move decisions. Or even 1 game.
"They play like a machine"
They learned variations from the machine.
I do not believe that all high level players learned variations from machines. There are certain guidlines for different types of positions that apply in most/all situations. For example when you have a isolated queen’s pawn you place your bishop behind the pawn as a general rule. At that level top engine moves are played because the engine and the guidlines tend to agree on how to improve your position and open up more tactics for yourself. But I’m not the greatest expert, just saying I don’t think GMs memorized engine lines
@Anon581 said in #6:
> The #2 choice of R7c2 is super sus, white willingly allows ...Bd4 and take your rook, thus losing the strong rook battery on the c-file for no immediate compensation I can see
You meant R7c3, right?
R7c2 (first thought for me, too) looks safe for the Rook, but your Queen gets somewhat trapped. Not easy to be sure there is an escape way.
Qg7#
By the way, I went R7c2 ofc. Me no cheater :)
Rxf7 is a human candidate but the follow up is by no means easy to combine. It‘s a complicated mix of b4, Bd5, Rc3, Qc1 which has to be foreseen in advance. I guess it’s difficult to calculate even for a GM otb.
So, if s.o. would have played this against me in a online Blitz game - I rest my case.
I would still play Rxf7 in this position, and just because a player plays this way does not mean they are cheating. Granted, there are patterns that engines move around, but they are patterns that human players can learn, and they hold some of the building blocks to being good at positional chess.
I'm also more aggressive with punishing positional flaws and note that I think + plan differently than other players, so I understand why some people would think this is the case.
What makes a cheater is someone who consistently plays with high accuracy. Even good players make minor/major positional/material mistakes.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.