lmao, isnt this from the dream cheated his speedrun video? the quote for Karl Jobst?
@shadow1414, this can sometimes be the opposite. I agree with your post but here is a reason against your argument:
Bad players might feel discouraged and think they are really bad at chess. So they cheat to make them feel like they are winning and are good players.
Bad players might feel discouraged and think they are really bad at chess. So they cheat to make them feel like they are winning and are good players.
@The_Meme_Guy. Yes.
@Riko2020_chess. Yes bad players also cheat. But good ones are more likely to.
I don't know if this proves that more cheaters are good players, instead, it proves that more bad chess players get caught. So more good players are cheaters that haven't been caught.
If you total all cheaters together, even the ones that have been caught, who knows if good players would exist more. But you have good points.
If you total all cheaters together, even the ones that have been caught, who knows if good players would exist more. But you have good points.
Yes, you are right. But, let me see:
You say good chess players cheat because they want to KEEP winning, but bad players cheat because they want to actually WIN.
And: As good players Are good players, they get caught less likely than bad players, because good players cheat it’s more hard to notice because they are good, and bad players when they cheat they look too more good to appear to be actually real.
So: good players are tented to cheat as they are hard to notice and because they want to keep winning while bad players are tented to cheat because they want to win and because they want to feel like good players, that means there are equally likely chances of a good player to cheat than a bad player to cheat, not as I thought before reading this that but players are more likely to cheat than good players
You say good chess players cheat because they want to KEEP winning, but bad players cheat because they want to actually WIN.
And: As good players Are good players, they get caught less likely than bad players, because good players cheat it’s more hard to notice because they are good, and bad players when they cheat they look too more good to appear to be actually real.
So: good players are tented to cheat as they are hard to notice and because they want to keep winning while bad players are tented to cheat because they want to win and because they want to feel like good players, that means there are equally likely chances of a good player to cheat than a bad player to cheat, not as I thought before reading this that but players are more likely to cheat than good players
It is probably easier for "good" (What does this even mean? professional players, or coaches?) players to get away with cheating, or do so in a way that is more intelligent- however, that does not mean that they are more likely to cheat.
Cheating in speedrunning is not comparable to cheating in chess- it is significantly easier to cheat in chess than it is to cheat in speedrunning. The simplest method to cheat in speedrunning is splicing, but in order for splicing to be a useful strategy you need to already be reasonably good at the game so that you have fast enough IL times that it's worth it. More advanced methods like manipulating RNG or trying to pass off a TAS as RTS are extremely difficult to pull off for someone without experience, and the payoff is minimal.
However, with chess it is extremely easy to cheat- all you need is a GUI of any sort that has an engine, and you can just input the moves. The amount of knowledge needed to cheat in chess is extremely minimal when you compare it to speedrunning so the equivalence between the two is false. You can literally cheat at chess with two browser windows, it's extremely easy.
The other reason why "good" players are less likely to cheat is because they have invested significant time into chess- if they are caught cheating it can have devastating consequences for their careers, and their legitimacy as players is put into question. Further, there are far reaching consequences like getting banned from tournaments for an amount of time or for life. If a person has already put thousands of hours into chess, why would they do something that can consequentially lead to their thousands of hours being wasted?
Chess playing in general has increased substantially since the COVID19 shutdowns, and it has increased even more with The Queen's Gambit show on Netflix. With this, cheating has also increased in frequency. This trend is represented on chess.com here: www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating, this happened even before Queen's Gambit came out. To my knowledge lichess does not keep track of these data, but I would like to see it if they do.
From my personal experience of playing on chess.com, when I have reported accounts for cheating which did get closed they were less than a month old. Many people who know very little about chess will make accounts and then get banned within a month.
Also, the fact of the matter is that even though strong players can perhaps cheat in a more intelligent way, they still get banned for cheating. There are moves that are almost impossible for human beings to find- even extremely strong players, especially in blitz games. Often, during games where one has a winning position there are several choices that are good- sometimes these computerish moves are played by extremely strong players and this sets off red flags in cheat detection software.
As to the "good players feel entitled" argument, do you have any evidence that this is actually true of a majority of strong players? Strong players have lost more times than the beginners have tried, so they can more easily accept that they lost in the majority of cases. There are rare exceptions, but the incentive for strong players to cheat is extremely low and the disincentive to cheat is extremely high. Beginners or people who know very little about chess only have to worry about their accounts being closed, not their careers being ruined- so they will always be more likely to cheat overall.
Cheating in speedrunning is not comparable to cheating in chess- it is significantly easier to cheat in chess than it is to cheat in speedrunning. The simplest method to cheat in speedrunning is splicing, but in order for splicing to be a useful strategy you need to already be reasonably good at the game so that you have fast enough IL times that it's worth it. More advanced methods like manipulating RNG or trying to pass off a TAS as RTS are extremely difficult to pull off for someone without experience, and the payoff is minimal.
However, with chess it is extremely easy to cheat- all you need is a GUI of any sort that has an engine, and you can just input the moves. The amount of knowledge needed to cheat in chess is extremely minimal when you compare it to speedrunning so the equivalence between the two is false. You can literally cheat at chess with two browser windows, it's extremely easy.
The other reason why "good" players are less likely to cheat is because they have invested significant time into chess- if they are caught cheating it can have devastating consequences for their careers, and their legitimacy as players is put into question. Further, there are far reaching consequences like getting banned from tournaments for an amount of time or for life. If a person has already put thousands of hours into chess, why would they do something that can consequentially lead to their thousands of hours being wasted?
Chess playing in general has increased substantially since the COVID19 shutdowns, and it has increased even more with The Queen's Gambit show on Netflix. With this, cheating has also increased in frequency. This trend is represented on chess.com here: www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating, this happened even before Queen's Gambit came out. To my knowledge lichess does not keep track of these data, but I would like to see it if they do.
From my personal experience of playing on chess.com, when I have reported accounts for cheating which did get closed they were less than a month old. Many people who know very little about chess will make accounts and then get banned within a month.
Also, the fact of the matter is that even though strong players can perhaps cheat in a more intelligent way, they still get banned for cheating. There are moves that are almost impossible for human beings to find- even extremely strong players, especially in blitz games. Often, during games where one has a winning position there are several choices that are good- sometimes these computerish moves are played by extremely strong players and this sets off red flags in cheat detection software.
As to the "good players feel entitled" argument, do you have any evidence that this is actually true of a majority of strong players? Strong players have lost more times than the beginners have tried, so they can more easily accept that they lost in the majority of cases. There are rare exceptions, but the incentive for strong players to cheat is extremely low and the disincentive to cheat is extremely high. Beginners or people who know very little about chess only have to worry about their accounts being closed, not their careers being ruined- so they will always be more likely to cheat overall.
@Andnar. Good points. Although I do think that cheating properly in chess does require knowledge.
Though not as much as speed-runing. I still think people do need to know about the game.
Like if the moves you make always take(for example) 3 seconds then that is clearly suspicious.
Also if a bad player takes too long on a completely obvious move then I do believe that needs to be accounted for as well. But chess might be an exception when it comes to what kind of payers cheat in it. I am not sure.
When making the statement "having talent tends to make people feel entitled" I used basic theory.
Off course, it's not true for everyone. But it is true for the majority of "good" players that cheat.
And by "good" I am MOSTLY referring to professionals.
Again' good points.
Though not as much as speed-runing. I still think people do need to know about the game.
Like if the moves you make always take(for example) 3 seconds then that is clearly suspicious.
Also if a bad player takes too long on a completely obvious move then I do believe that needs to be accounted for as well. But chess might be an exception when it comes to what kind of payers cheat in it. I am not sure.
When making the statement "having talent tends to make people feel entitled" I used basic theory.
Off course, it's not true for everyone. But it is true for the majority of "good" players that cheat.
And by "good" I am MOSTLY referring to professionals.
Again' good points.
@shadow1414 your assumptions are stereotypes. Very childish. This is something not even my friends do(Im in 5th grade so are they) Good players and bad players both have reasons to cheat. That is assuming that's not true, which I have no knowledge about. But, do any of us? But I do see your point in saying that though. Good players wouldn't want to lose rating, but it doesn't mean they're more likely to cheat.
@Yalturkmani. "Good players wouldn't want to lose rating" I am talking about all competition. Not just chess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.