@Haymarket said in #50:
> The game was done because you left your rook to f8.
Do you hear me? I am not asking why the game was done. I am asking why I am still making mistakes and the player get back to the second game as a "superpower" without any mistakes and even inaccuracies. The same player that did 3 mistakes and 1 blunder in the game before now in 2+1 game in no time plays without any inaccuracy!
I am not surprised that I do mistakes in 2+1 game, I am surprised why my opponent of the same level doesn't. While just a game before he did a lot.
I don't believe in such a progress in 5 minutes.
These two games a like played with different opponents.
> The game was done because you left your rook to f8.
Do you hear me? I am not asking why the game was done. I am asking why I am still making mistakes and the player get back to the second game as a "superpower" without any mistakes and even inaccuracies. The same player that did 3 mistakes and 1 blunder in the game before now in 2+1 game in no time plays without any inaccuracy!
I am not surprised that I do mistakes in 2+1 game, I am surprised why my opponent of the same level doesn't. While just a game before he did a lot.
I don't believe in such a progress in 5 minutes.
These two games a like played with different opponents.
If a 1700 player can play 2+1 like this: lichess.org/nOfAyQ6p, why do we need GMs and others? It would be enough to have him/her as a world champion and stop finding champions...
Again, I done some mistakes (not too many for 2+1 game for 1700, BTW), but the opponent was like a brick wall.
1.5 minutes, 28 moves, 2 inaccuracies, 96% accuracy. Well, of course this is not a cheater. Of course, any 1700 can do this easy.
Again, I done some mistakes (not too many for 2+1 game for 1700, BTW), but the opponent was like a brick wall.
1.5 minutes, 28 moves, 2 inaccuracies, 96% accuracy. Well, of course this is not a cheater. Of course, any 1700 can do this easy.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Haymarket said in #54:
> And if you analyze it with Stockfish, you notice moves 18. and 22. are not computer moves.
Agree, but cheaters are aware of this logic, as well. So, they do two things:
1. Play some moves themselves to learn and for fun until chess engine help is needed. This is quite often pattern.
2. Choose 2nd, 3rd, etc. lines from chess engine to hide chess engine usage. This is more rare, but still on the table.
So, taking into account that cheaters could imitate, it is hard to say based on two moves. I am looking for the game as a whole.
Anyway, I see your point.
BTW, not all "real-time" chess engines are perfect, in fast game they could make bad decisions for first couple of seconds, as well as lichess engine does. I saw positions where it recommends weird moves for first dozens of seconds until analysis settles.
> And if you analyze it with Stockfish, you notice moves 18. and 22. are not computer moves.
Agree, but cheaters are aware of this logic, as well. So, they do two things:
1. Play some moves themselves to learn and for fun until chess engine help is needed. This is quite often pattern.
2. Choose 2nd, 3rd, etc. lines from chess engine to hide chess engine usage. This is more rare, but still on the table.
So, taking into account that cheaters could imitate, it is hard to say based on two moves. I am looking for the game as a whole.
Anyway, I see your point.
BTW, not all "real-time" chess engines are perfect, in fast game they could make bad decisions for first couple of seconds, as well as lichess engine does. I saw positions where it recommends weird moves for first dozens of seconds until analysis settles.
@Motroskin said in #49:
> First game. Right after the opening he does 15. ... Ne4?? which is quite strange for our level even in bullet. It is easy to see that I have 3 attacks and he has 2 defenses. Well, it happens.
> What is 17. ... f5? Is this really for 1700+ rating? Weird. Anyway, this is not the advantage to give up in bullet game, we all do mistakes. Let's remember his score: 3 mistakes and 1 blunder for this very simple opening and 8 moves after it. And the final strangest thing, he resigned on move 23 with my advance in 2 pawns and "slightly" better position.
15. Ne4 seems common blunder that we all make. Could be sort of miscalculation or perhaps the Bullet pressure.
17. .... f5 loses the pawn but I presume that they want to get rid of Rook that is on 5th file and exchange it. It could be that they didn't like that setup and hence sacrificed a pawn.
Come on, you can't act like a GM questioning their move!
'Slightly' better? No, it was clear win for White in any case. This very act by them shows their mindset like that of strong player who on reaching particular position thinks it's useless to continue the game as it's done. Any GM would dismiss Black position as lost though.
> And this give up seems to me like "well, I will teach you with my chess engine now!", that's why he gave up so easy. The player already was on his way to revenge, guaranteed revenge. Again, this is how I feel it, I could be wrong, of course.
A good raw plot for a movie I reckon! Far from reality at the moment.
> Now the second game comes. The same player. In no time won in 9 moves (well, formally in 25, but in 9 moves the game was done) without any inaccuracy, mistake or blunder. Well, I blundered the order of moves and missed this 7. Nb5. But see the pace and precision of the whole game. It is the same person which played the first game, with easy to see mistakes, etc. And now he is just a killing machine. With such a pace and precision he could beat any GM.
> If this is not strange for you and don't give you any doubts, what would?
Wait, don't press the accelerator!
In first game, there was no bad move by opponent for first 14 moves of the game. And now you are talking about first 9 moves where they didn't play any bad move. Ridiculous!
In the 9 moves, you lost a pawn and an exchange.
It isn't that they played rather you played poor.
They didn't kill the game, you killed it yourself.
Hard for any player to recover from such a position. Black is already losing.
So, your claim for 2nd game is nullified as you lost yourself, they didn't play any special move.
And in 1st game, they just lost so no case of cheating either.
2 games likes these can't deduce anything. Play some more games with them and I will decide whether your claim is any true or not. Or don't play with them and stop your allegations.
Anything to say more?
Also, in case you feel someone is cheating then report them to Lichess. There's excellent team at Lichess who can check whether a player has taken any external assistance or not. If your report is true, then the player would be banned. As simple as that!
> First game. Right after the opening he does 15. ... Ne4?? which is quite strange for our level even in bullet. It is easy to see that I have 3 attacks and he has 2 defenses. Well, it happens.
> What is 17. ... f5? Is this really for 1700+ rating? Weird. Anyway, this is not the advantage to give up in bullet game, we all do mistakes. Let's remember his score: 3 mistakes and 1 blunder for this very simple opening and 8 moves after it. And the final strangest thing, he resigned on move 23 with my advance in 2 pawns and "slightly" better position.
15. Ne4 seems common blunder that we all make. Could be sort of miscalculation or perhaps the Bullet pressure.
17. .... f5 loses the pawn but I presume that they want to get rid of Rook that is on 5th file and exchange it. It could be that they didn't like that setup and hence sacrificed a pawn.
Come on, you can't act like a GM questioning their move!
'Slightly' better? No, it was clear win for White in any case. This very act by them shows their mindset like that of strong player who on reaching particular position thinks it's useless to continue the game as it's done. Any GM would dismiss Black position as lost though.
> And this give up seems to me like "well, I will teach you with my chess engine now!", that's why he gave up so easy. The player already was on his way to revenge, guaranteed revenge. Again, this is how I feel it, I could be wrong, of course.
A good raw plot for a movie I reckon! Far from reality at the moment.
> Now the second game comes. The same player. In no time won in 9 moves (well, formally in 25, but in 9 moves the game was done) without any inaccuracy, mistake or blunder. Well, I blundered the order of moves and missed this 7. Nb5. But see the pace and precision of the whole game. It is the same person which played the first game, with easy to see mistakes, etc. And now he is just a killing machine. With such a pace and precision he could beat any GM.
> If this is not strange for you and don't give you any doubts, what would?
Wait, don't press the accelerator!
In first game, there was no bad move by opponent for first 14 moves of the game. And now you are talking about first 9 moves where they didn't play any bad move. Ridiculous!
In the 9 moves, you lost a pawn and an exchange.
It isn't that they played rather you played poor.
They didn't kill the game, you killed it yourself.
Hard for any player to recover from such a position. Black is already losing.
So, your claim for 2nd game is nullified as you lost yourself, they didn't play any special move.
And in 1st game, they just lost so no case of cheating either.
2 games likes these can't deduce anything. Play some more games with them and I will decide whether your claim is any true or not. Or don't play with them and stop your allegations.
Anything to say more?
Also, in case you feel someone is cheating then report them to Lichess. There's excellent team at Lichess who can check whether a player has taken any external assistance or not. If your report is true, then the player would be banned. As simple as that!
@Akbar2thegreat said in #56:
> I will decide whether your claim is any true or not
What makes you a decision person? I don't see you are titled player or at least have enough rating to judge.
Do not get me rude, I just trying to understand what is your background for such kind of analysis?
You are totally welcome with your input, but "decisions" require some deep knowledge.
Anyway, give me an example of cheated game and show me what would be in my way to use your statements above to reject cheating claim in that case. Let's start with something not so obvious as cheating against world champions; cheater vs cheater games or deep not-easy-to-see combinations for 5 or more moves.
> I will decide whether your claim is any true or not
What makes you a decision person? I don't see you are titled player or at least have enough rating to judge.
Do not get me rude, I just trying to understand what is your background for such kind of analysis?
You are totally welcome with your input, but "decisions" require some deep knowledge.
Anyway, give me an example of cheated game and show me what would be in my way to use your statements above to reject cheating claim in that case. Let's start with something not so obvious as cheating against world champions; cheater vs cheater games or deep not-easy-to-see combinations for 5 or more moves.
@Motroskin
Why should 'I' give the example?
You made the thread and made alleged claim.
In our conversation at this thread, I nullified your claim well enough with inadequacy of games to conclude your alleged claim.
And with 'experience' as you said before, go and share your past game where also you thought that your opponent might have taken external assistance. Else your so called 'experience' would be of no use.
Playing one or two players with numbers in their username won't be called as experience as such and you would then be using the term wrongly.
Why should 'I' give the example?
You made the thread and made alleged claim.
In our conversation at this thread, I nullified your claim well enough with inadequacy of games to conclude your alleged claim.
And with 'experience' as you said before, go and share your past game where also you thought that your opponent might have taken external assistance. Else your so called 'experience' would be of no use.
Playing one or two players with numbers in their username won't be called as experience as such and you would then be using the term wrongly.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #58:
> Playing one or two players with numbers in their username won't be called as experience as such and you would then be using the term wrongly.
I played tons of them. Better to say, thousands. You can just glance my account.
Please note, that from my point of view I "nullified your alleged" (your terms, sorry, not meant to be rude) analysis and showed that it doesn't bring value because it lacks the difference between cheat/no-cheat conclusions; just abstract words which could be addressed to any game. That's why I asked for counter-example which you don't want to provide, it's your choice and I respect it.
Anyway, I got your point, thank you for your input, it helps.
> Playing one or two players with numbers in their username won't be called as experience as such and you would then be using the term wrongly.
I played tons of them. Better to say, thousands. You can just glance my account.
Please note, that from my point of view I "nullified your alleged" (your terms, sorry, not meant to be rude) analysis and showed that it doesn't bring value because it lacks the difference between cheat/no-cheat conclusions; just abstract words which could be addressed to any game. That's why I asked for counter-example which you don't want to provide, it's your choice and I respect it.
Anyway, I got your point, thank you for your input, it helps.
@Motroskin said in #59:
> I played tons of them. Better to say, thousands. You can just glance my account.
You really didn't get it! No issue.
I meant that since you said that you inferred from your experience that most of players having numbers in their username cheat, so I just asked for another game(s) to show and analyse else your statement would be devalued.
> Please note, that from my point of view I "nullified your alleged" (your terms, sorry, not meant to be rude) analysis and showed that it doesn't bring value because it lacks the difference between cheat/no-cheat conclusions; just abstract words which could be addressed to any game. That's why I asked for counter-example which you don't want to provide, it's your choice and I respect it.
I don't need to provide counter example. If I share a past game which I saw/played then I believe you can provide equally strong explanation for proving me wrong for my alleged thought. A coin can never fall on same side always. It has two sides to balance out.
By my words 'I nullified your claim' I am not acting as if you are culprit. I am just providing a different perspective of game and balancing out the impact. That's nature of human mind, it tends to oppose others. No big deal and sorry if my words offended you.
> Anyway, I got your point, thank you for your input, it helps.
Sure, welcome.
This is Lichess where players learn, talk to others and get to know them in community, debate in order to exchange ideas and views and solve problems. That’s the beauty.
> I played tons of them. Better to say, thousands. You can just glance my account.
You really didn't get it! No issue.
I meant that since you said that you inferred from your experience that most of players having numbers in their username cheat, so I just asked for another game(s) to show and analyse else your statement would be devalued.
> Please note, that from my point of view I "nullified your alleged" (your terms, sorry, not meant to be rude) analysis and showed that it doesn't bring value because it lacks the difference between cheat/no-cheat conclusions; just abstract words which could be addressed to any game. That's why I asked for counter-example which you don't want to provide, it's your choice and I respect it.
I don't need to provide counter example. If I share a past game which I saw/played then I believe you can provide equally strong explanation for proving me wrong for my alleged thought. A coin can never fall on same side always. It has two sides to balance out.
By my words 'I nullified your claim' I am not acting as if you are culprit. I am just providing a different perspective of game and balancing out the impact. That's nature of human mind, it tends to oppose others. No big deal and sorry if my words offended you.
> Anyway, I got your point, thank you for your input, it helps.
Sure, welcome.
This is Lichess where players learn, talk to others and get to know them in community, debate in order to exchange ideas and views and solve problems. That’s the beauty.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.