And so what all this seems to be leading towards is that when you cannot see how an on line opponent is deriving their moves you have only the moves themselves as the evidence of what may be happening.
Other things such as "apparent chess knowledge" "apparent speed of reply" "gameload" may be relevant but are less meaningful, and may not be known to an investigator not involved in the actual game.
Originally posted by wormwoodBut
jusuh
1615 RHP
2156 otb blitz
if I remember right, his fics/playchess ratings were around 2200-2300.
but yeah, it's very rare (as far as I know).
1) he's a completely inactive user, hasn't moved in over two years (I know I haven't in 100 days either)
2) He's +28-5=7; moreover 2 of the 5 losses were by timeout, not really representative, it only means his rating should be on the rise
3) I bet he has played more than 40 games on those other sites
eh...
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I wouldn't call myself a very good player, but there's usually a discrepancy of 500~800 points between my blitz and standard rating in whatever platform I play.
I also know, and I'm sure other players do as well, some very good players
who are quite bad a blitz, it just does not suit them. It means nothing.
Cheats:
Some are so blatant you get the impression they do it just for a laugh.
I'm sure the no profile, non-posters do.
Originally posted by philidor positionThere's quite a variety of playing strength depending on the playing accomodation/interface indeed
I wouldn't call myself a very good player, but there's usually a discrepancy of 500~800 points between my blitz and standard rating in whatever platform I play.
Originally posted by heinzkatyeah, there are of course reasons. and he obviously COULD have done much better had he put in the effort. but the fact is, he didn't make the necessary effort, and ended up with relatively stable 1600-rating.
But
1) he's a completely inactive user, hasn't moved in over two years (I know I haven't in 100 days either)
2) He's +28-5=7; moreover 2 of the 5 losses were by timeout, not really representative, it only means his rating should be on the rise
3) I bet he has played more than 40 games on those other sites
eh...
and he was at least almost as good at blitz 2 years ago as he's now, as far as I know. he's always done very well in otb blitz tournaments. the kid just kills almost every tournament. and I don't think he's even trained in years, but he does play speed chess tournaments a lot.
Originally posted by Quiet InterludeRelevant but less meaningful? Let us take the hypothetical example of onlinechamp who joins in Jan 2010. On his profile he states "Hi, I'm onlinechamp and i starting to learnt how to play chess. I enjoying chess very much."
And so what all this seems to be leading towards is that when you cannot see how an on line opponent is deriving their moves you have only the moves themselves as the evidence of what may be happening.
Other things such as "apparent chess knowledge" "apparent speed of reply" "gameload" may be relevant but are less meaningful, and may not be known to an investigator not involved in the actual game.
His games in Jan-Mar 2010 are 1000-1300 level displaying no knowledge of chess (as expected). Then from April to Jun 2010 he improves dramatically beating people 1900-2200. What do you then tell us? "Apparent chess knowledge", "apparent speed of reply", "gameload" are not meaningful in explaining this rapid improvement? Bollocks mate.
Originally posted by CCNoobThe thread is about engine cheats.
Relevant but less meaningful? Let us take the hypothetical example of [b]onlinechamp who joins in Jan 2010. On his profile he states "Hi, I'm onlinechamp and i starting to learnt how to play chess. I enjoying chess very much."
His games in Jan-Mar 2010 are 1000-1300 level displaying no knowledge of chess (as expected). Then from April to Jun 201 ...[text shortened]... ly", "gameload" are not meaningful in explaining this rapid improvement? Bollocks mate.[/b]
Your scenario could equally apply to a player receiving elite human assistance.