Originally posted by Dragon Fire
The point is Game 1625906 was resigned but anyone knows this is a draw. I can't understand why a strong player who has presumably left the site could not tell this virtually instantly.

Even if they were cheating by using tablebases the draw would be obvious and has been for a number of moves.

well, mary ann was banned for 3b, and obviously was not a strong player.

Originally posted by wormwood
well, mary ann was banned for 3b, and obviously was not a strong player.

I see now.

Way before my time. A cheater who was caught out by not using Tablebases in an elementary drawn ending.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I see now.

Way before my time. A cheater who was caught out by [b]not using Tablebases in an elementary drawn ending.[/b]

yea, funny how things turn out. she should've cheated more to not get caught. 🙂 (well okay, that failure to see the draw was not why she got caught, but still...)

last spring I was a bit sceptical when stronger players said they could see or feel that their opponent uses an engine. but now, I'm starting to see some of it too as I've improved. there just are some situations an engine can't see, and either suggests a pointless move, or the cheat comes up with one all by himself. - when a strong player blunders, there still always is a good point to that move. he just missed something that caused it to not work. but weak players and engines can just make a completely pointless move every now and then.

Originally posted by wormwood
yea, funny how things turn out. she should've cheated more to not get caught. 🙂 (well okay, that failure to see the draw was not why she got caught, but still...)

last spring I was a bit sceptical when stronger players said they could see or feel that their opponent uses an engine. but now, I'm starting to see some of it too as I've improved. there just ...[text shortened]... . but weak players and engines can just make a completely pointless move every now and then.

Yes sometimes you get a feel. Moves that seem strange, are counter intuitive and which at first sight don't seem to make much sense but on closer examination are tactically strong whilst appearing strategically poor or, more often, moves that seem pointless (repetition perhaps) that are objectively the strongest move but which don't create the winning chances that the second or third best move creates.

I have a game at the moment that I suspect might be a good example (on going so I won't post it yet) R,2N & P vs 2R and 2P. The R & 2Ns have all the play and the winning chances due to the position of the Ps but if my R is exchanged off and the last Rook sacrificed for the P I have only 2 Knights which cannot win. My entire strategy is based on protecting my R and P with my Knights whilst trying to edge that pawn forward. I could force the pawn easier with more aggressive support by my Rook but then cannot stop the exchange and sacrifice. I am certain an engine would allow the exchanges and not realise it is then at best a draw until too late. It may be that ultimately I have to take the chance with the Rook hoping that he goes for a win and doesn't want to exchange but at the moment I'd rather not take that chance.