Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Create a game Tournament Simultaneous exhibitions
Chess basics Puzzles Practice Coordinates Study Coaches
Lichess TV Current games Streamers Broadcasts (beta) Video library
Players Teams Forum Questions & Answers
Analysis board Opening explorer Board editor Import game Advanced search
Sign in
  1. Forum
  2. General Chess Discussion
  3. Sudden Grandmaster Syndrome


And you're a 1600 rated troll.

Problem solved.

Touchy person complains about something. Doesn't like answer. Starts another thread with a similar theme. Still doesn't like answer. Calls-out trolls trying to help explain things. Problem solved.

Well, that was simple: Trolls are are a natural pest insecticide.

Since the problem is solved, the thread can now be closed.

Similar theme? The only similar theme is that both my posts attracted you, the idiot.

@MrCharles Usually you are a troll or at least an interesting forum-poster. However, I think you conducted yourself quite decently in this thread.

@Cagey A bit touchy, but not as much as you're being made out to be.

Separately, how do you think players are cheating under time pressure with engines? Allowing an engine to analyze a position in a different tab/window and then switching back to a game to input the move requires time which isn't usually there under time pressure. Do you think all low ranked weird-patterned players use bots? Not an accusation or attack or anything, just questions.

How to say... Playing agaisnt low level players (1300 for exemple in rapid games...) and losing against a player who made no blunder nor mistake happens sometimes. It is logical to ask some questions about the real level of that player and about the help he may have request.

But, in my opinion, cheating is the problem of the cheatter, not mine. Wanting to be the king of the hill of your street ? No problem. Directly in my blacklist.
It is more important to improve myself and find the right move even against Stockfish


I don't think there is any impediment to an engine user successfully consulting the computer with, for example, 1 minute remaining on their clock and a three second increment. If the matter is only the speed of input, it is more than sufficient. Coupled with the fact that any of the engines top 5 moves are sufficiently strong so as to maintain equality or an advantage against all but the best moves (which the human player has to struggle to uncover), it is feasible to do this.

I think many people on Lichess routinely consult engines in tough or critical positions, or when they have been playing naturally but have drifted into a worse or losing position. I also do not think it is possible to catch these types of players even though, while playing, it is quite easy to "see" that the level and accuracy of play has increased dramatically from one part of the game to the next.


Of course, cheating is the problem of the cheater. But it is also everybody else's problem. You will never be good enough to beat Stockfish , or any other top engine - no human, regardless of their experience or proficiency in chess, can beat engines in this day and age. That is the problem. Your play does not improve when you get crushed by computers.

Cheating in chess is everybody's problem because, if unchecked, at the end of the day the entire site would be populated by thousands of data entry clerks fighting it out with each other over absolutely nothing. I suspect this is already largely the case.

I think (may be i'm wrong) there are much more honest players than cheaters. They are like some mosquitoes in a quiet summer night. Enough to disturb you, but not enough to prevent you to sleep !

Playing here is for fun or training for future OTB tournaments. Is there anything else to win in lichess ?
Of course, it can destroy the global rating.
Let the administrator (with our help) struggle against cheaters, and let us play chess.
Any other solution ?


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