- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Is possible to catch cheaters on a correspondence game?

#11

It takes longer but the detection process is almost the same. You think finding the best lines is easy if you have like 3 days per move? No it's not, you still need the positional and tactical understanding to evaluate said positions as good or bad. I've been playing correspondence for years and I take my games very seriously meaning that I take a lot of time calculating for each position. But still after I analyze my games with engine, I find that I have missed many ideas and misjudged many many positions. Sometimes I spend 4 hours calculating a position only to come up with a mistake. In correspondence the accuracy is much higher but you can still see the difference between human and computer chess- at least in my level and below.
Overall, playing correspondence has been a great learning tool for me and I find myself quickly out of form whenever I stop playing it. So keep playing and don't worry about cheaters.

It takes longer but the detection process is almost the same. You think finding the best lines is easy if you have like 3 days per move? No it's not, you still need the positional and tactical understanding to evaluate said positions as good or bad. I've been playing correspondence for years and I take my games very seriously meaning that I take a lot of time calculating for each position. But still after I analyze my games with engine, I find that I have missed many ideas and misjudged many many positions. Sometimes I spend 4 hours calculating a position only to come up with a mistake. In correspondence the accuracy is much higher but you can still see the difference between human and computer chess- at least in my level and below. Overall, playing correspondence has been a great learning tool for me and I find myself quickly out of form whenever I stop playing it. So keep playing and don't worry about cheaters.
#12

I agree with Epitomaniac...Bad moves can occur in correspondence chess (just take a look at my games)...Why?...Because chess is largely a psychological game and your own emotional nature will effect the way you play.

As a matter of fact everything is psychological...I invest in the stock market and theoretically the market should be getting more efficient due the improved dissemination of information. If anything the market is becoming more inefficient because of human nature (fear and greed).

As for all this talk about cheating...who really cares...so somebody cheats...the sun will still rise in the morning. I play chess to improve my game and hopefully someday to take some pride in a well-played game. if somebody cheats while playing against me...so be it. Although I don't think cheating is really much of a problem at the correspondence level. Cheaters can't be bothered waiting days or at times weeks to win a few rating points, theirs is an impatient nature. I'm still fairly new here but i've played correspondence for years at another site and I don't think anybody has ever cheated while playing me.

I agree with Epitomaniac...Bad moves can occur in correspondence chess (just take a look at my games)...Why?...Because chess is largely a psychological game and your own emotional nature will effect the way you play. As a matter of fact everything is psychological...I invest in the stock market and theoretically the market should be getting more efficient due the improved dissemination of information. If anything the market is becoming more inefficient because of human nature (fear and greed). As for all this talk about cheating...who really cares...so somebody cheats...the sun will still rise in the morning. I play chess to improve my game and hopefully someday to take some pride in a well-played game. if somebody cheats while playing against me...so be it. Although I don't think cheating is really much of a problem at the correspondence level. Cheaters can't be bothered waiting days or at times weeks to win a few rating points, theirs is an impatient nature. I'm still fairly new here but i've played correspondence for years at another site and I don't think anybody has ever cheated while playing me.
#13

I used to play correspondence chess when I was a beginner. I think it was the best chess and it is how it should be played. My rating was much higher than blitz mainly because in blitz I couldn't see hanging pieces due to lack of time. I had no chess knowledge. I didn't have any board vision/tactic skills at all. I even didn't know such things existed. In correspondence games those skills were unnecessary for me because I was just thinking long about every single move. In current arrogant times it is called "outsitting the opponent". I think now that it was some sort of poor quality brute force calculation. The number of cheaters was smaller at that time because engines were not popular and folks didn't know how to install them, they would rather own the commercial software Fritz. Now everybody is bombarded with Stockfish for free.

In correspondence it's impossible to know if somebody is using computer assistance or not. I think a solution is to play corespondence as unrated only.

I used to play correspondence chess when I was a beginner. I think it was the best chess and it is how it should be played. My rating was much higher than blitz mainly because in blitz I couldn't see hanging pieces due to lack of time. I had no chess knowledge. I didn't have any board vision/tactic skills at all. I even didn't know such things existed. In correspondence games those skills were unnecessary for me because I was just thinking long about every single move. In current arrogant times it is called "outsitting the opponent". I think now that it was some sort of poor quality brute force calculation. The number of cheaters was smaller at that time because engines were not popular and folks didn't know how to install them, they would rather own the commercial software Fritz. Now everybody is bombarded with Stockfish for free. In correspondence it's impossible to know if somebody is using computer assistance or not. I think a solution is to play corespondence as unrated only.
#14

@tpr
#9
It would have been humorous if White (instead of resigning) played 82.Rh7 h1Q 83.Rh5!!

@tpr #9 It would have been humorous if White (instead of resigning) played 82.Rh7 h1Q 83.Rh5!!
#15

#14
83...Re2+
I showed the example just to highlight what a non even master is capable of in not even 24 h of analysis without any engine.
What if this game were played nowadays and white reported it for engine assistance?

#14 83...Re2+ I showed the example just to highlight what a non even master is capable of in not even 24 h of analysis without any engine. What if this game were played nowadays and white reported it for engine assistance?
#16

In my experience there are three reasons why even non-cheaters demonstrate better correspondence play when compared to their bullet/blitz/rapid games. First, a lot of games are simply abandoned. Those are easy wins. Second, having access to an opening book makes reaching a satisfactory middle game very easy. Finally, not everyone plays correspondence the way it was intended, with deep analysis for each move. Often one player is deeply thinking about the game, while their opponent is playing an asynchronous "rapid" game. The end result is sometimes a lopsided affair. I'm sure cheating does happen, but it's easy to have an inflated rating without resorting to computer help.

I like seeing my 2000 correspondence rating, but I know it's an illusion. Take away the extra time, the books, and the occassional opponent walking away from a game, and I'm really just a 1500 scrub.

If anyone is up for a game (please no more than 2-days per move). I'll play you with no book if you mention it in the chat. Also, until my rating returns to something closer to my real skill level I won't accept rated challenges from anyone more than 200 points below me. The last thing I want is to get marked for boosting someone. If you're more than 200 points above me that's okay too, since the lose won't hurt as much. Casual challenges, regardless of rating, are always fine.

In my experience there are three reasons why even non-cheaters demonstrate better correspondence play when compared to their bullet/blitz/rapid games. First, a lot of games are simply abandoned. Those are easy wins. Second, having access to an opening book makes reaching a satisfactory middle game very easy. Finally, not everyone plays correspondence the way it was intended, with deep analysis for each move. Often one player is deeply thinking about the game, while their opponent is playing an asynchronous "rapid" game. The end result is sometimes a lopsided affair. I'm sure cheating does happen, but it's easy to have an inflated rating without resorting to computer help. I like seeing my 2000 correspondence rating, but I know it's an illusion. Take away the extra time, the books, and the occassional opponent walking away from a game, and I'm really just a 1500 scrub. If anyone is up for a game (please no more than 2-days per move). I'll play you with no book if you mention it in the chat. Also, until my rating returns to something closer to my real skill level I won't accept rated challenges from anyone more than 200 points below me. The last thing I want is to get marked for boosting someone. If you're more than 200 points above me that's okay too, since the lose won't hurt as much. Casual challenges, regardless of rating, are always fine.
#17

The longer the game is, the harder it is to detect or convict cheaters. I suggest you to play on shorter time controls, like blitz or bullet. They will both give you a more cheater-free experience and make your chess skills better faster.

The longer the game is, the harder it is to detect or convict cheaters. I suggest you to play on shorter time controls, like blitz or bullet. They will both give you a more cheater-free experience and make your chess skills better faster.
#18

#15
They played the endgame very well. The problem however is in the move 54. g4?! Even ten years ago top engines like Rybka or Houdini were still unable to recognise that it's a blunder.

#15 They played the endgame very well. The problem however is in the move 54. g4?! Even ten years ago top engines like Rybka or Houdini were still unable to recognise that it's a blunder.
#20

When I used to play Correspondence, I played it for the sheer purpose of spending at least 20+ minutes on each move. Spending hours is fun too.

In correspondence I can move the pieces around and write down variations in notes. Do you realize how useful that is for someone like me? For someone with no visualization ability to speak of and the memory of a gold fish?

You're god damn right my correspondence would be like 500 points higher than my live rating. But it's due to my determination in examining each move thoroughly while other players might make moves as fast as in blitz. Blame the other, lazy, players for not having patience and determination.

Also, it's nothing unusual for blitz rating to be higher than bullet, rapid rating to be higher than blitz, classical rating to be higher than rapid, correspondence to be higher than classical. Especially for someone who started to play the game at an adult age and hence the brain isn't as developed for processing the chess board as quick.

I dare say that people who started to play that late can only play actual chess only in classical and correspondence, and are doomed to blunder in fast games for the rest of their lives.

When I used to play Correspondence, I played it for the sheer purpose of spending at least 20+ minutes on each move. Spending hours is fun too. In correspondence I can move the pieces around and write down variations in notes. Do you realize how useful that is for someone like me? For someone with no visualization ability to speak of and the memory of a gold fish? You're god damn right my correspondence would be like 500 points higher than my live rating. But it's due to my determination in examining each move thoroughly while other players might make moves as fast as in blitz. Blame the other, lazy, players for not having patience and determination. Also, it's nothing unusual for blitz rating to be higher than bullet, rapid rating to be higher than blitz, classical rating to be higher than rapid, correspondence to be higher than classical. Especially for someone who started to play the game at an adult age and hence the brain isn't as developed for processing the chess board as quick. I dare say that people who started to play that late can only play actual chess only in classical and correspondence, and are doomed to blunder in fast games for the rest of their lives.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.