1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterya rly, i'm pretty pissed off
Hahaha. It couldn't have been more obvious who was accused...
every game i've played on here with the exception of 1 game has been against player with a rating under 1600. The one other game was vs a 1900 some and I won that because he made 2 quick blunders in a row.
Looking at our game, what are you complaining about? I traded off some pieces and got a better minor piece and then traded it off to win a pawn. Then you gave up material for some reason. That's my 30 second explanation for why you're losing.
Originally posted by WayneDawgfor the record, I DO use something other than my brain. Along with that vital organ, I use opening books and databases.
How can one determine if your opponent is using a chess computer to play you?
In other words, how can one determine if another player is using something other than their brain?
1 edit
Originally posted by ShinidokiI'm sorry but I gotta laugh at this since you advised him to edit his post but didn't edit your quote (which tipped me off since I didn't see the original post)
until then -- mention no names, and I also suggest editing your post, so as t not give away any "clues"
Originally posted by chesskid001I don't trust Fritz' blundercheck feature.Once I gave checkmate with a pawn and it gave my move a ? and told me I should've checkmated with the rook 😕🙄
read in an article, that if you go over a game with a specific engine (don't remember which it was) and put in error detection for half pawn. That means it will tell you errors that are equivalent of losing hald a pawn. Even GM's make half pawn errors. If your opponent makes few or no half pawn errors, you should be suspicious
2nd, you should see thei ...[text shortened]... entage against similiarly rated players. If it is over 50 or 60%, they may be using a computer
In another game it gave my move a ? and suggested a line that ended in me losing my queen with no compensation.Naturally I investigated that position deeper and it turned out that my move,allthough not very good,was still better than losing the queen.
So if you insist on using this feature make sure you give it a lot of time per move.And even then I don't think much of it.
Originally posted by GorgarFritz will decide this if you are losing and giving away the Q delays mate by an extra move.
I don't trust Fritz' blundercheck feature.Once I gave checkmate with a pawn and it gave my move a ? and told me I should've checkmated with the rook 😕🙄
In another game it gave my move a ? and suggested a line that ended in me losing my queen with no compensation.Naturally I investigated that position deeper and it turned out that my move,allthough not ver ...[text shortened]... feature make sure you give it a lot of time per move.And even then I don't think much of it.
These sort of pointless delaying tactics are a sure pointer to a player using an engine. A reasonable human opponent will find a move that whilst not objectively as good maximises the chances of a mistake getting him back into the game.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireThat may be true about the game with the queenloss,I dunno,will see if I still have it.
Fritz will decide this if you are losing and giving away the Q delays mate by an extra move.
These sort of pointless delaying tactics are a sure pointer to a player using an engine. A reasonable human opponent will find a move that whilst not objectively as good maximises the chances of a mistake getting him back into the game.
But even if it is the case for that game what about the other then?When I mated with a pawn I most certainly wasn't losing 😉
edit: Bugger,I didn't keep those games.Bah,nm then 🙁
Originally posted by Gorgarmaybe there was another 'better' mate. I mean, if the engine evaluates the 'continuation' also, one mate leaving a piece en prise and the other not, AND if the '?' function is triggered by a move that is less than optimal, then the result could be a '?' for a mating move. just guessing.
But even if it is the case for that game what about the other then?When I mated with a pawn I most certainly wasn't losing 😉
edit: Bugger,I didn't keep those games.Bah,nm then 🙁
Originally posted by wormwoodNo no,it was the last move,the actual checkmate.I could deliver it with a pawn and with a rook.In fact,I had not even seen the mate with the rook as I was focussing on mating with the pawn.
maybe there was another 'better' mate. I mean, if the engine evaluates the 'continuation' also, one mate leaving a piece en prise and the other not, AND if the '?' function is triggered by a move that is less than optimal, then the result could be a '?' for a mating move. just guessing.
Last year I was playing in an e-mail tmt. with the correspondence organization I belong to where I’m rated 2000+ and was playing a 1400. After about 25 moves I stood considerably worse and suspected the rascal might be an engine user, so started checking all his moves with Fritz to see if they matched. They didn’t….Fritz would evaluate the position at, say .75 advantage for him and he’d choose a move that gave him, say, .55. Also, it turned out Fritz was unhappy with several of my moves. I had to come to the conclusion that even with a 1400 rating he was just plain playing a good game. Just because your opponent is lower rated and winning doesn’t mean he’s cheating.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by masscatSo although your opponent wasn't using an engine, you were.
Last year I was playing in an e-mail tmt. with the correspondence organization I belong to where I’m rated 2000+ and was playing a 1400. After about 25 moves I stood considerably worse and suspected the rascal might be an engine user, so started checking all his moves with Fritz to see if they matched. They didn’t….Fritz would evaluate the position at, say ...[text shortened]... a good game. Just because your opponent is lower rated and winning doesn’t mean he’s cheating.
Oh, the irony!