11 Nov 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityYes, some shun good opponents to preserve the illusion they are good and lie to themselves about their own skill level.
but....when it comes to playing someone who studies....they quickly see they are barely 1300.
and so....they fool themselves with the advice from an engine.
2 months ago i met a man who apparently his whole life was telling people he was good.
I destroyed him. i had harder times against 6 year olds in the park.
that man is the perfect type to cheat.
But this site has shown us another type of cheat: A good player who does it, like "TRACKHEAD21." He desperately wanted to be in the top three, was paranoid of other engines, and rationalized cheating as fighting fire with fire. Then he got too many games and thought he could have a computer play some games at 2000 rating or so, I suspect, since his true rating was above that, he thought; so the win would be still justified. Others like to inflict pain, as "Mary Ann" did -- a woman beating so many men and looking sexy too! 😴
11 Nov 07
I wonder if the urge to cheat might come from an inability to identify with humanity. I work in a service industry where our performance directly impacts people's economic and emotional welbeing. I see this quite a bit at work where people will actually undermine our ability to produce results in favour in short term results.
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by LukerikAnyone read the chessnews site? It showed this player in India who sewed a cellphone interface into his baseball cap with ear flaps and always had it on covering his ears, his rating went from about 1900 to 2400 inside of 6 months, due to the other end of the phone being a guy with fritz or shredder. He got caught and the Indian chess authorities banned him from tournaments for TEN YEARS. I wonder what he is thinking now? In his case, I'm sure it was motivated by money not ego. But what about here? No money riding on games, and like that guy Ironman, rising to the top of the heap, then busted and banned. I wonder, if they get a big ego kick out of being on top like that, what happens to their little ego when they get caught out and banned? I hope it stings like heck!
I wonder if the urge to cheat might come from an inability to identify with humanity. I work in a service industry where our performance directly impacts people's economic and emotional welbeing. I see this quite a bit at work where people will actually undermine our ability to produce results in favour in short term results.
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by sonhouseI bet some people enjoy that part, too. Some people just want attention (and drama) no matter what.
I wonder, if they get a big ego kick out of being on top like that, what happens to their little ego when they get caught out and banned? I hope it stings like heck!
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodOne counter-example does not disprove the rule. Moreover, he was so busy with more important things that I doubt he put serious effort into becoming a better chess player. The idea I mention is mostly applicable to people who invest a lot of time in improving their chess.
oppenheimer.
13 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyyou're making loads of assumptions here, ones that fit your opinions about intelligent people being automatically better at chess than the rest of us, and then, when someone breaks the assumption he's just conveniently labeled as an 'exception'.
One counter-example does not disprove the rule. Moreover, he was so busy with more important things that I doubt he put serious effort into becoming a better chess player. The idea I mention is mostly applicable to people who invest a lot of time in improving their chess.
kasparov didn't become good because he's intelligent. it's been said that his main strength compared to other top players was that he's an insane workaholic. fisher is clearly another raging OCD case, with little to no grasp on how things outside chess work. (I mean, how stupid do you have to be, to be an antisemitist when your mother, your neighborhood and your friends are jewish? that's like being a black skinhead.)
do you really think that someone like oppenheimer would, no, that he could pass on the opportunity of finding out how chess works?
"yeah, well, looks like good ol' albert beats me every time on this game of simple logical rules no matter how much I focus, without me even seing it coming. but nah, I don't care how he does it. I'm gonna just sleep my nights like a baby without contemplating on this apparent dilemma, because that's just the kind of guy I am. a lazy thinker with no persistence."
okay, I admit I made up the last bit. but it does make you wonder, doesn't it?
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodMaybe you haven't understood my position yet. I will quote from my original post: "It's true that hard work is most important, but it's clear that intelligence plays an important role too."
you're making loads of assumptions here, ones that fit your opinions about intelligent people being automatically better at chess than the rest of us, and then, when someone breaks the assumption he's just conveniently labeled as an 'exception'.
kasparov didn't become good because he's intelligent. it's been said that his main strength compared to other ...[text shortened]...
okay, I admit I made up the last bit. but it does make you wonder, doesn't it?
As for Oppenheimer, yes I think he had bigger things on his mind than why he lost some random chess game. I think his real work was far more rewarding and interesting to him and chess was only a minor hobby which he didn't work at very much.
13 Nov 07
I don't know exactly what a chess engin is or how it works, but I sometimes play people with higher ratings than mine and yet they are inferior players. I have to wonder how yhey got the high rating and how they keep it. I have approximately a 70% win ratio and I run across some one who has more losses than wins and still have a high rating. How is that possible? And it isn't rare Someone enlighten me how all this works.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666the win/lose ratio tells you only the relative strength of the opponents they've played against, not their own strength.
I don't know exactly what a chess engin is or how it works, but I sometimes play people with higher ratings than mine and yet they are inferior players. I have to wonder how yhey got the high rating and how they keep it. I have approximately a 70% win ratio and I run across some one who has more losses than wins and still have a high rating. How is that possible? And it isn't rare Someone enlighten me how all this works.
a 1600 rated player who plays only 1600's will have a 50% win/loss ratio.
a 1600 rated player who plays only 1400's will win 75% of his games.
a 1600 playing only 1800's will have 25% wins.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodthat just shows you how bad the rating system is. I mean the 1600 player playing only 1800s would probably be a stronger player than the other two 1600 rated players in your scenario presented. Although the rating system is beyond improvement any improvement I have to offer(meaning I think it is as good as it gets), I just wonder if there is a better way to show the relative strenght of players.
the win/lose ratio tells you only the relative strength of the opponents they've played against, not their own strength.
a 1600 rated player who plays only 1600's will have a 50% win/loss ratio.
a 1600 rated player who plays only 1400's will win 75% of his games.
a 1600 playing only 1800's will have 25% wins.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityWetting yourself during a game..... Ill have to try that.
i also think it's our doctors and lawyers and such who think they are smarter than most people.
but when they discover they totally blow at chess they don't understand why.
so they cheat.
Chess has nothing to do with being smart. I know a crazy bum who wets himself....yet he beats me every game.
ya i'm only 1400 but still.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by tomtom232Not really. If he remained at 1600 he would still only stand a 50% chance of victory against another 1600 player but what should happen if that the player playing only 1800 players should improve more than the guy only playing 1400s and his rating will go up reflecting his stronger opposition.
that just shows you how bad the rating system is. I mean the 1600 player playing only 1800s would probably be a stronger player than the other two 1600 rated players in your scenario presented. Although the rating system is beyond improvement any improvement I have to offer(meaning I think it is as good as it gets), I just wonder if there is a better way to show the relative strenght of players.