Just something to think about.
ttp://www.captainchess.com/abuse-of-engines-and-lack-of-respect-for-the-chess-master/
2014 there was an article in NiC and the author claimed with drastic words:
"Just as the gun enables the inconsequential loner to 'equalize' himself with, say, John Lennon or John F. Kennedy, so the computer enables the talentless to prove themselves 'better" than celebrated grandmasters. And via online comments they can broadcast their superiority to the world."
(Dominic Lawson, President of the English Chess Federation)
I truly dislike people worshiping computers as if they were the ultimate truth in chess.
In my opinion the computers have done more harm than good to chess as a whole.
Very true. Simon Williams did a long time control series recently 15+10 and I think 4 out of the first 5 videos he lost to engine users.
It's actually sad to think that someone had the opportunity to play a GM and wasted it by choosing to let the computer play for them instead of using their own brain.
I used to imagine engine users being 14 year old nerds that did it to seem powerful but then I saw people like Atrophied admit to cheating. It's only going to get worse.
Yes. The comments in the chatrooms after a non-perfect move (according to the live computer evaluation) by Carlsen are on the same low plane as those of the millions of self-anointed football (soccer!) experts in the pubs after a scene like this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJsBk5LSGswWell, yesterday I watched a soccer game live in the stadion and I must confess: at least almost all soccer fans were "right" with their comments and observed details pretty good although they used no aids like slow motion or zoom. So it is not 100% the same (of course most of them were not even close to play soccer themselves - for example I ;-) )
PS: most people watch soccer on their home TV though and they've got all this sophisticated material which is given, namely lots of cameras, slow motion, comments and so on. This is comparable with engine evaluations, sure.
Atrophied? The guy who played a lot against John Barthw? Sad. On the other hand: There are really many players with 2000+ ratings online. I wonder if they are genuine, or just purile young guys who want to look like geniuses?
I'd say its the latter Vesle.
First off. Before I say anything else I will say: I could be wrong.
And I'm not pointing any fingers.
That being said, logically; there arent that many GMs in the world. Perfect games; even among GMs, are not something that happens on a back to back basis; every game. Each game is unique; which is why chess is such an amazing game.
Then you look at the top tier lichess players; 2300 and up.
100% perfect 0/0/0 games are regular; common even.
Then youve got the top tier crazyhouse players; thats just a joke.
100% perfect games on crazyhouse...should just result in a instant ban; or a serious looking at by a true GM.
After 4 moves in STANDARD chess there are There are 288+ billion different possible positions. Thats exponentially higher in ZH and it just gets higher and higher as the game goes on. Perfection should simply...not be possible. Especially when your talking about 30 second bullet games...lel
Look at the forums. People constantly saying things like; well I only use a engine sometimes; or for the opening; or for this; or for that; I mean every does it...right? Could point to 100s of comments like that in the forums.
No; every one does not do it. No; its not okay to even do it for a few moves. If you can't figure out what the best move is, you shouldnt be asking a computer. You should try and try again until you figure out what works and what doesnt.
Thats the point of chess. To better ones own critical thinking; even more so with blitz, as it adds pressure to the mix.
It reminds me of basically every online game and the cancer that is cheating. You get beat by a cheater; so you think you need cheats to be able to keep up with the cheaters; next thing you know you think everyones cheating so you just always use it; then 1/5 people who play you think the same thing; so they begin cheating as well. On and on it goes.
I refuse to play anyone over a 2K Rating. Too high of a probability that they arent legit.
Much props to the people who truly are legit; and can keep up with the engines. But I tend to doubt that many people are.
@DollaHollaAtcha I agree on a lot that you say, but I must say you overestimate the number of cheaters in players over 2k rating.
I play only vs people above 2k (in classical) and the typical cheater is a 2100-2200 provisional rating guy, they make a quick rise by cheating until they reach a level where people can often tell when they are playing against a computer.
It's way more rare for an established player to cheat, but that does happen sometimes.
I have some statistics from my own reports, I have gotten 14 players banned for cheating, I have reported a few more, but not too many more.
So in 500+ classical games vs 2k+ field and 14 cheaters (with maybe 30 total suspicions). That gives 6% suspicious players with 3% confirmed cheaters.
Actually I (resp. the authors) had neither the cheaters in mind nor the genuine trolls. Admittedly they are the bigger problem though.
#1 just addresses at all the wise guys who watch games played by the masters with a running engine and comment on every deviation: "Blunder! How weak you are! SF says ..." Respect is lacking!
Lawson's irritation is understandable, but I don't think that GMs suffer from lack of respect outside of select internet chatrooms/forums. Anywhere else GMs are still the bees-knees. . Internet forums are an odd place and if you visit chessbomb or something expecting patzers to hold quiet civility and listen with humble quietude to commenting GMs you might get a rude awakening sure, but I wonder why anyone would care about them/that.
I for one am able to enjoy top GM-games more with my pocket GM showing why so-and-so move was good, bad or ugly. I enjoy GM commentary more, but the engine has made it much more accessible. This does not mean that I forget that I am to the elite as a pure beginner is to me.
