If you play chess online, you know the type I mean. Nasty comments, hate-sitting, requesting draw offers over and over in a lost position, disconnecting instead of resigning, cheating – heck, the list goes on and on. So, what do we do when we encounter these people? Nothing, that’s what. Ignoring and reporting them is the best solution.
If someone calls us a name or laughs at us after an embarrassing loss and we react, they get the satisfaction of knowing they upset us. If we say nothing to these jerks, however, they are left empty-handed and might even become irritated themselves.
What about someone who has several minutes left on their clock and simply let their time run down instead of resigning? This is commonly called hate-sitting. While it is very annoying, there isn’t much to do besides reporting the player. Just turn the speaker volume up so you can hear the unlikely event of them making a move, and surf the web or something. Again, do not react because the hate-sitting player will be pleased with himself.
Potty-mouths are everywhere, but the anonymity of the Internet brings out the worst in some people. If someone curses at you or uses other abusive language, simply save the chat and report them. There is absolutely no sense in getting into a typing war with a moron over a chess game. Keep your blood pressure down and move on to the next opponent.
Anyone who knows me knows that I hate a cheater. Yes, hate is a strong word, but it is the most appropriate one I can think of. Why it’s any fun at all to fire up a chess engine and rob someone of hard-earned rating points is beyond me, but it happens. If you feel that your opponent cheated you, report the game so the proper administrators can have a look-see and determine if software usage was present. Don’t tell everyone on the site that so-and-so cheats, don’t call them a cheater, and don’t fire up an engine yourself so that you can win the next game against them. Ignore the player and find another opponent.
People love to do things to get us going, especially after a loss. If you play chess on the Net, you simply must accept this as part of the deal. Reacting to them stokes the fire instead of putting it out. Would you be upset if a child stuck his tongue out at you? Internet idiots use basically the same tactic. Don’t allow it to anger you, or the abuser gets what he wants.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Chess theory at the class or club level
Most of us chess players fall into the class or club player level, meaning we aren’t experts or titled players. On that same note, most of us have not been playing serious, competitive chess since we were four, or seven, or even ten. The large majority of us, even if we do actively play in tournaments, play for the fun and love of the game. Sure, we love improving, but is GM really in our future?
So, what is all the talk about this line or that line being refuted, busted or archaic? Those phrases affect the FM, IM and GM most, because their understanding of the game is so deep. It’s their job to keep up on and memorize theory so they can remain competitive.
I’m going to assume that most of the folks reading this blog entry do not have a chess title of any sort, and lose games regularly due to silly mistakes. I know I do. So, if we botch tactics, screw up the move order in openings and thoroughly rot at endgames, what the heck does it matter that we are playing archaic lines that have been thrown out at the highest level? It doesn’t. Really, it is that simple.
This is especially true, in my opinion, when we get to openings like the Sicilian. Each Sicilian variation carries with it tons of theory and sharp lines. If your rating is 1450 and you like playing c5 against e4, I say, “Go for it!” Just don’t expect to get the results that a 2500 rated player will. 1...c5 may be theoretically the most powerful response to 1. e4, but it doesn’t win on its own. You also have to be a good player. Get the basic move order down, pick a variation you like and keep playing it. Don’t listen when some 1700 comes along and tells you that the Najdorf options have all been exhausted and so it isn’t worth playing. It is simply and completely untrue.
I don’t like learning a lot of theory, so I enjoy lines like 1. f4 or 1. Nf3 right off the bat, which turn into “chess” almost immediately instead of rote, memorized lines that anyone can bang out in a few seconds. If you want to learn theory, pick up the QGD or play 1. e4 and study like mad. The point is, that whichever line you decide to play, archaic or not, is going to be competitive at “our” level. If you are 12 years old and have a 2300 FIDE rating, of course it’s going to be different for you. However, if you are somewhere at mid-class level with the rest of us and dream of breaking 1800 some day, play whatever the heck you like. The theory means exactly zip.
So, what is all the talk about this line or that line being refuted, busted or archaic? Those phrases affect the FM, IM and GM most, because their understanding of the game is so deep. It’s their job to keep up on and memorize theory so they can remain competitive.
I’m going to assume that most of the folks reading this blog entry do not have a chess title of any sort, and lose games regularly due to silly mistakes. I know I do. So, if we botch tactics, screw up the move order in openings and thoroughly rot at endgames, what the heck does it matter that we are playing archaic lines that have been thrown out at the highest level? It doesn’t. Really, it is that simple.
This is especially true, in my opinion, when we get to openings like the Sicilian. Each Sicilian variation carries with it tons of theory and sharp lines. If your rating is 1450 and you like playing c5 against e4, I say, “Go for it!” Just don’t expect to get the results that a 2500 rated player will. 1...c5 may be theoretically the most powerful response to 1. e4, but it doesn’t win on its own. You also have to be a good player. Get the basic move order down, pick a variation you like and keep playing it. Don’t listen when some 1700 comes along and tells you that the Najdorf options have all been exhausted and so it isn’t worth playing. It is simply and completely untrue.
I don’t like learning a lot of theory, so I enjoy lines like 1. f4 or 1. Nf3 right off the bat, which turn into “chess” almost immediately instead of rote, memorized lines that anyone can bang out in a few seconds. If you want to learn theory, pick up the QGD or play 1. e4 and study like mad. The point is, that whichever line you decide to play, archaic or not, is going to be competitive at “our” level. If you are 12 years old and have a 2300 FIDE rating, of course it’s going to be different for you. However, if you are somewhere at mid-class level with the rest of us and dream of breaking 1800 some day, play whatever the heck you like. The theory means exactly zip.
Friday, June 24, 2011
What's your favorite chess set?
My first chess set was bought from the friend of a dead Master (no kidding) for $15. It had a fancy-ish but well-used green roll-up vinyl board, an ugly green bag and those yellow and black, really heavy pieces you sometimes see at the chess club. I loved it. I used it for years and it just kept going.
Eventually, I took each piece apart and re-seated the lead weights with clear RTV so they wouldn’t rattle anymore. A few thousand 5/0 games had taken their toll on the innards, especially the rooks. This both made them a tad heavier and much, much more solid sounding. If you were pick up one of my rooks, and set it down with authority, it sounded like a small gun had gone off. *BAM!* The things are really wicked.
Anyhow, I ended up moving on to more expensive, Staunton style plastic double-weighted sets (as opposed to the triple-weight of the first set) from House of Jocques, I believe. Anyhow, I got two identical sets in different colors so that I could have a bunch of sets, depending on my mood. I got a red/tan set and a black/white set, so I could bring white/red, black/red, tan/white, black/tan – well, you get the idea. It went over well, and folks liked the red pieces, especially. Well, *most* folks did, but I’ll save the one who didn’t for another entry.
Then I purchased a really nice wooden set – the kind where you can SEE the grains; I love that stuff. It’s my serious tournament set to this day, but is it my favorite set? I don’t believe so. I get a lot of compliments on it and all, but really, it’s hard to beat the weight and ruggedness of my first set.
So, my favorite set is still the yellow/black “Thumper” set, as I affectionately call it. The only drawback to the set is that it’s old and the pieces aren’t exactly new looking, and it only has one queen per color, whereas the rest of my sets came with four queens. But, they can be ordered cheaply enough and I’m considering doing that!
Eventually, I took each piece apart and re-seated the lead weights with clear RTV so they wouldn’t rattle anymore. A few thousand 5/0 games had taken their toll on the innards, especially the rooks. This both made them a tad heavier and much, much more solid sounding. If you were pick up one of my rooks, and set it down with authority, it sounded like a small gun had gone off. *BAM!* The things are really wicked.
Anyhow, I ended up moving on to more expensive, Staunton style plastic double-weighted sets (as opposed to the triple-weight of the first set) from House of Jocques, I believe. Anyhow, I got two identical sets in different colors so that I could have a bunch of sets, depending on my mood. I got a red/tan set and a black/white set, so I could bring white/red, black/red, tan/white, black/tan – well, you get the idea. It went over well, and folks liked the red pieces, especially. Well, *most* folks did, but I’ll save the one who didn’t for another entry.
Then I purchased a really nice wooden set – the kind where you can SEE the grains; I love that stuff. It’s my serious tournament set to this day, but is it my favorite set? I don’t believe so. I get a lot of compliments on it and all, but really, it’s hard to beat the weight and ruggedness of my first set.
So, my favorite set is still the yellow/black “Thumper” set, as I affectionately call it. The only drawback to the set is that it’s old and the pieces aren’t exactly new looking, and it only has one queen per color, whereas the rest of my sets came with four queens. But, they can be ordered cheaply enough and I’m considering doing that!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Bobby Fischer: Leave him Alone.
So, I watched the Fischer documentary that HBO put out a couple of nights ago, and it got me thinking about how I’m tired of all the anti-Fischer zealots that seem to be everywhere. Even folks that aren’t in the chess world think of him as a raving lunatic, and that is in large part thanks to mass media, in my opinion. I’m not here to dispel any myths or to prove anything about the man and I’m not a psychologist. I wish only to offer another point of view into the Fischer saga that everyone seems to have an opinion about.
First off, Fischer lived with chess and chess only from a very young age, right on up into adulthood. The documentary mentioned this and even Fischer admitted that he might be a tad more well-rounded had he led a more normal life during childhood. Nobody can be expected to turn out “normal” with only chess as a companion during the formative years. That’s weird in and of itself. I’m not saying it’s what made Fischer “insane,” but I’m sure it didn’t help.
Fischer was off the charts with his I.Q., literally – at least that’s the way I read it somewhere. They told his mother that he was above 200 and had an exceptional memory. You know the whole, “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes” thing? Well, it’s pretty obvious that the large majority of us do not have a 200 I.Q. So, maybe we should keep our non-extreme-genius opinions to ourselves until we see the world the same way Fischer did.
He won the world championship for the USA in 1972 against Russia during the Cold War, a period in which such a win was very important. Later, the USA cast him out as a fugitive and jailed him because he played chess, the same game which put us on the map so many years ago. I might harbor a little disdain for the country, as well. He should be a hero in this community, no matter what his personal views are. Just saying.
He was Jewish and hated Jews. So what? I’ll bet if we dig around in each of our heads a little we’ll find quite a few weird things that would put us in the “weird” or even “insane” category. He didn’t like women either, and especially women chess players. Again, so what? The man surely has a right to his opinions, and if they don’t match the rest of ours or aren’t “politically correct,” it’s neither here nor there. Let’s appreciate him for his chess prowess and let his games live in infamy instead of attacking the oddball side of him all the time. Sports figures abuse drugs, rape women, kill dogs and trash hotel rooms on a regular basis, and yet the public at large is willing to let those inadequacies go as long as they keep scoring goals. That’s way more insane than admitting you like Fischer, who did nothing more than harbor hateful opinions. Get real, folks.
I could go on and on, and likely will, in future blog posts. The point is that the way in which the media portrayed Fischer, the way in which we as individuals or a whole chess community think we understand Fischer and the way Fischer actually was inside are likely all very, very different. Alekhine was dubbed a drunk and an anti-Semite, Morphy was said to have lost it at the end and Steinitz as well, and I personally have yet to meet a chess player (not someone who knows how to play chess, mind you, but a chess player) who seems completely well-adjusted and 100% sane.
We chess addicts are all a bit weird, and it’s completely believable that the better we are at the game, the more outside the normal box we live. Again, I ask, “So what?” There is more to life and chess than roasting a man for this or that, or judging him for off-the-board qualities that may or may not actually be possessed. Just as a sports fan can so easily overlook the egregious errors of his or her favorite jock, we too should be able to look past the person and appreciate them for the part we love: their chess games. That’s my two cents, and I’m sticking by it.
First off, Fischer lived with chess and chess only from a very young age, right on up into adulthood. The documentary mentioned this and even Fischer admitted that he might be a tad more well-rounded had he led a more normal life during childhood. Nobody can be expected to turn out “normal” with only chess as a companion during the formative years. That’s weird in and of itself. I’m not saying it’s what made Fischer “insane,” but I’m sure it didn’t help.
Fischer was off the charts with his I.Q., literally – at least that’s the way I read it somewhere. They told his mother that he was above 200 and had an exceptional memory. You know the whole, “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes” thing? Well, it’s pretty obvious that the large majority of us do not have a 200 I.Q. So, maybe we should keep our non-extreme-genius opinions to ourselves until we see the world the same way Fischer did.
He won the world championship for the USA in 1972 against Russia during the Cold War, a period in which such a win was very important. Later, the USA cast him out as a fugitive and jailed him because he played chess, the same game which put us on the map so many years ago. I might harbor a little disdain for the country, as well. He should be a hero in this community, no matter what his personal views are. Just saying.
He was Jewish and hated Jews. So what? I’ll bet if we dig around in each of our heads a little we’ll find quite a few weird things that would put us in the “weird” or even “insane” category. He didn’t like women either, and especially women chess players. Again, so what? The man surely has a right to his opinions, and if they don’t match the rest of ours or aren’t “politically correct,” it’s neither here nor there. Let’s appreciate him for his chess prowess and let his games live in infamy instead of attacking the oddball side of him all the time. Sports figures abuse drugs, rape women, kill dogs and trash hotel rooms on a regular basis, and yet the public at large is willing to let those inadequacies go as long as they keep scoring goals. That’s way more insane than admitting you like Fischer, who did nothing more than harbor hateful opinions. Get real, folks.
I could go on and on, and likely will, in future blog posts. The point is that the way in which the media portrayed Fischer, the way in which we as individuals or a whole chess community think we understand Fischer and the way Fischer actually was inside are likely all very, very different. Alekhine was dubbed a drunk and an anti-Semite, Morphy was said to have lost it at the end and Steinitz as well, and I personally have yet to meet a chess player (not someone who knows how to play chess, mind you, but a chess player) who seems completely well-adjusted and 100% sane.
We chess addicts are all a bit weird, and it’s completely believable that the better we are at the game, the more outside the normal box we live. Again, I ask, “So what?” There is more to life and chess than roasting a man for this or that, or judging him for off-the-board qualities that may or may not actually be possessed. Just as a sports fan can so easily overlook the egregious errors of his or her favorite jock, we too should be able to look past the person and appreciate them for the part we love: their chess games. That’s my two cents, and I’m sticking by it.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Are you “Booked Up?”
For several years, I’ve been touting about opening knowledge, and how it’s so important. I mean, what good is starting a chess game if you are going to lose the thing in the first ten moves anyhow? However, I also believe that *too* much opening study is wrong. It’s good to know the ideas behind each opening, and maybe a couple zaps and traps, but you should always be *playing* chess, instead of pounding out pre-determined lines.
Why, though? Because, if you just slap out the first ten moves of the opening you know so well, without thinking, you may miss slight errors or even blunders from the opposing camp. Instead, think about the chess game from move one, and you’ll find you win a lot more games, even if the moves you choose aren’t “book” lines. Many times, the book moves will be correct anyhow, but decide for yourself *why* they are correct, and you’ll have a much deeper understanding of each opening and the way they work.
Of course, if you are a big 1-minute fan, this credo may not work so well because you don’t have as much time to ponder each position. But in a long game, or even a blitz game, simply insta-moving pieces because it’s the way the opening is supposed to look could be a big mistake. After all, the name of the game is winning, and if you can win in the first few moves because of a blunder the other side makes, you’ve got to take advantage of that.
The first, and most important, thing for you to do is decide which opening formations fit best with your style. If you like long, positional grinds then gambit openings may not be best suited for you. But if you are an attacking player who likes sharp, unclear positions, you may find that positional openings may prove a little too boring for your particular tastes.
Second, you must determine the *ideas* behind the openings. Believe it or not, GMs are thinking about the endgame while they make their first ten moves. Moving certain pawns or developing certain pieces to different squares greatly affects how the endgame will turn out, and so they can steer toward openings that favor their entire game style, and not just play for cheapos to win a pawn by move twelve. Sometimes, pawns are more expensive than they seem to be at first.
My advice is to pick an opening and play it in slower games for a while. Lose a hell of a lot of battles with it, and note where you went wrong and right. Then, once you get a better feel for them and what their aims are, you can begin to implement them into blitz games or bullet games because there may be less “thinking” involved, and more rote memory while still playing sound, solid chess.
Openings are an important, integral part of the game of chess, but they are not the end-all-be-all. Just as much, if not more, time should be spent on tactics and endgame structures. A well-balanced chess player will be much better equipped to win games than the one who spends all their time on one certain aspect. That’s just the way it is.
Why, though? Because, if you just slap out the first ten moves of the opening you know so well, without thinking, you may miss slight errors or even blunders from the opposing camp. Instead, think about the chess game from move one, and you’ll find you win a lot more games, even if the moves you choose aren’t “book” lines. Many times, the book moves will be correct anyhow, but decide for yourself *why* they are correct, and you’ll have a much deeper understanding of each opening and the way they work.
Of course, if you are a big 1-minute fan, this credo may not work so well because you don’t have as much time to ponder each position. But in a long game, or even a blitz game, simply insta-moving pieces because it’s the way the opening is supposed to look could be a big mistake. After all, the name of the game is winning, and if you can win in the first few moves because of a blunder the other side makes, you’ve got to take advantage of that.
The first, and most important, thing for you to do is decide which opening formations fit best with your style. If you like long, positional grinds then gambit openings may not be best suited for you. But if you are an attacking player who likes sharp, unclear positions, you may find that positional openings may prove a little too boring for your particular tastes.
Second, you must determine the *ideas* behind the openings. Believe it or not, GMs are thinking about the endgame while they make their first ten moves. Moving certain pawns or developing certain pieces to different squares greatly affects how the endgame will turn out, and so they can steer toward openings that favor their entire game style, and not just play for cheapos to win a pawn by move twelve. Sometimes, pawns are more expensive than they seem to be at first.
My advice is to pick an opening and play it in slower games for a while. Lose a hell of a lot of battles with it, and note where you went wrong and right. Then, once you get a better feel for them and what their aims are, you can begin to implement them into blitz games or bullet games because there may be less “thinking” involved, and more rote memory while still playing sound, solid chess.
Openings are an important, integral part of the game of chess, but they are not the end-all-be-all. Just as much, if not more, time should be spent on tactics and endgame structures. A well-balanced chess player will be much better equipped to win games than the one who spends all their time on one certain aspect. That’s just the way it is.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Chess and Cheating
I have been an administrator, and not an entry-level one, on a chess site for years and years. I was fortunate enough to be able to work the computer abuse team, which has taught me a great deal about not only how to spot cheaters, but some of their reasons for doing so, as well. People are interesting. I’m a people person, and never just fry someone without getting the story first. I take it from there. As a side note, I actually knew and worked with the guy who used ear buds in the 2006 World Open, and we were all there rooting him on. Sad.
I’m highly schooled when it comes to computer engines, although my fire for them is burning out quickly. That doesn’t change the fact that I know what I’m doing, though, and I can spot a cheated game a mile away with one eye open, at least as long as it’s on the Net. For me, separating a pretty strong player from an engine cheater is almost as easy as looking down to see if my shoes match. No big deal. All day long.
Of course, the players at big tournaments cheat for monetary gain, with rating gain being an included bonus. We don’t really need to speculate much about them then, do we? Their intentions and goals are very clear, and what they do is and should be punishable by law. They are literally stealing. OTB cheaters are after cash – cold, hard, cash. Got it.
Rather, I’m speaking of the 1500-level player on your favorite playing site who begins using an engine. While it may seem obvious to us that he doesn’t want to lose and he wants to gain rating points and so he decides to cheat, that isn’t always the case. Of course, there’s almost always some of that mixed in, but the real, underlying reasons can be severely different from cheater to cheater. Let’s take a few examples.
John plays on chessisgreat.com (fictional site for our purposes) every day, and he studies when he has time, although his college courses and roommates and part-time job make it more than difficult to improve much at the game. And of course, there’s girls. John is rated 1990 on the website, and he knows for sure that were he allowed to buckle down and hit the books proper, he could surpass his goal of 2100. Because he cannot do that, and doesn’t see a time where he will be able to do that in the near future, he breaks out Chessmaster and begins to seek games against higher rated opponents. After a few wins, his rating climbs, and it becomes addicting. He finds that it is much easier to swindle points than it is to trudge through the mire, losing some and winning some, never making real headway.
Aaron, on the other hand, is a fifteen year-old latch-key-kid who loves chess, but is unsupervised from the hours of 3pm, when he gets home from school, to 7pm, when his parents return home from work. He also spends his afternoons on chessisgreat.com, and would love to improve but he has severe A.D.D., and reading books is super difficult for him, although he has a deep love for playing. He sees the games the Masters play and he wants to play just like them, but he just can’t seem to find it in him to do things the right way. So, out comes Fritz and off he goes, right to the top. He knows he isn’t learning anything and maybe he even knows he’ll be caught someday, but it’s worth seeing that 2,000+ rating behind his name. It makes him feel good on the Internet, which is basically his world because, well, because he’s fifteen and spends time playing chess. Some nice girl will like him, someday, but for now, it’s all about his kingdom, which lies just beyond the monitor that’s slowly rotting his brain and stealing his morals.
Bruce signs on to chessisgreat.com to play a specific buddy, whom he knows from the local chess club. Bruce cannot beat his buddy, and knows damn well that it’ll be a month of Sundays before he does. When the hammer hits the iron, he’s just simply tired of losing. So, he fires up Arena and uses an engine in a few of their battles. Hearing his friend tell him how much he’s improving and that he’s doing great is well worth the lie he has decided to live. When he gets beat badly at the club by that same friend, he can just say that he’s tired, or having an off day. Oh, what tangled lives we lead, when once we practice...
I have been busting people for cheating on the Net longer than I care to admit, and the fictitious cheaters above are just THREE examples as to reasons why someone would choose to not play their own games. Trust me, there are fifty-eleven others, and more waiting to come out of the woodwork. Just when I think I’ve heard them all, someone comes along with a new one.
The point to my long-winded post is that we simply do not know, not all the time, why someone does the things they do. That is, unless money is involved, and then pinpointing their motivations becomes a tad easier. Of course, some folks just want to cheat for the sake of cheating. Some of them actually enjoy maliciously taking the hard-earned points of others, and watching them become upset over it. Some folks want a big rating and they don’t care how they get it, and other people actually want to get caught, for one reason or another. Nothing is ever as it seems – trust me on that one.
I feel very strongly about cheating and chess. I loathe a cheater, and will never do so myself. Never have I, and never will I, cheat in a game of chess. You might find me with an ace up my sleeve at a family poker game, for kicks and giggles, but I’ll never shortchange the most beautiful game to ever grace the rock we call Earth. That you can bet on. Also, I will continue to bust players on the Internet who use software assistance, for as long as I’m able to spot their cheating asses. Will it solve anything? Nope. Cheating is here to stay, but I can play a small role in the prevention of it, maybe, and that’s what we all should do.
Here are some broad, very general tips on things to watch out for if you suspect your opponent is cheating on your favorite chess playing site:
1. big slow-game rating, tiny bullet or blitz rating. Not always a dead giveaway, but definitely an arrow pointing in that direction. Normal variations are 300 points or less. So, a 1500 bullet player with a standard rating of 1800 isn’t necessarily cause for alarm. However, an 1100 touting a 2300 standard rating should be looked into. Quickly. There are always exceptions. I see titled players regularly on the ICC with 1300 bullet ratings. Some people just don’t think that quickly, or operate well under time pressure. Needless to say, if that IM had more than 1-minute, he’d likely be able to outplay his opponents, and badly.
2. odd king shifts, when there doesn’t appear to be any attack on it. Engines love odd king shifts. For instance, if the engine wants to prepare, as white, for an f4 shove but sees that a queen or bishop could come out and harass it with a check, it may move its king to h1, just in case, whereas very few 1600 players on the Net are going to see that and prepare so thoroughly. Most players attack, not pre-defend. Watch those odd king shifts.
3. really strong, out of place looking pawn pushes, *especially* if they are sacrifices. Now, I’m not one to bad-mouth any chess player, as I feel we are all a part of a very cool thing, but really, what 1300 is going to sacrifice their d-pawn to make clearance for a brutal N outpost? Very, very few. An engine will, though. You betcha. Watch for really super slick pawn pushes, particularly in the middle and end game.
4. finally, and this one is very loose, watch for kingside pawn storms, especially when both players have castled on the same side. The reason being that an engine, even a weak one, will be able to see accurately over ten moves deep, and know if it’s safe to start shoving g and h pawns down its opponent’s throat. We as human players, however, have been (mostly) conditioned to *not* push pawns that are in front of our kings. It doesn’t feel natural, it feels risky and uncomfortable. Now, a real-life Expert or above player will surely launch pawn storms, but a 1400 isn’t going to if he or she wants to survive. Like I said, it’s a semi-weak sign but a sign nonetheless.
There are a ton of other things, but entire seminars can and are held on the subject of chess cheating. I feel that no matter what your motivations, if you cheat at a chess game, it says something about you as a person. If you’ll steal a dime, you’ll steal a quarter, type thing. Likely, there are other issues in that person’s life that will lead them to cheating at a chess game.
One of the best ways to keep the game of chess honest is just not to cheat. Don’t do it, under any circumstances, even if it’s a friendly sparring match with a good friend. Play the game, or else it starts to play you, and what fun is that? There is no “good feeling” or sense of accomplishment when we defeat a player using an engine. There just isn’t. As chess players, we win and lose and draw. That’s just the way it is. In order to truly improve however, we have to obey the rules. Nothing is gained by cheating, not in chess and not in anything else.
I’m highly schooled when it comes to computer engines, although my fire for them is burning out quickly. That doesn’t change the fact that I know what I’m doing, though, and I can spot a cheated game a mile away with one eye open, at least as long as it’s on the Net. For me, separating a pretty strong player from an engine cheater is almost as easy as looking down to see if my shoes match. No big deal. All day long.
Of course, the players at big tournaments cheat for monetary gain, with rating gain being an included bonus. We don’t really need to speculate much about them then, do we? Their intentions and goals are very clear, and what they do is and should be punishable by law. They are literally stealing. OTB cheaters are after cash – cold, hard, cash. Got it.
Rather, I’m speaking of the 1500-level player on your favorite playing site who begins using an engine. While it may seem obvious to us that he doesn’t want to lose and he wants to gain rating points and so he decides to cheat, that isn’t always the case. Of course, there’s almost always some of that mixed in, but the real, underlying reasons can be severely different from cheater to cheater. Let’s take a few examples.
John plays on chessisgreat.com (fictional site for our purposes) every day, and he studies when he has time, although his college courses and roommates and part-time job make it more than difficult to improve much at the game. And of course, there’s girls. John is rated 1990 on the website, and he knows for sure that were he allowed to buckle down and hit the books proper, he could surpass his goal of 2100. Because he cannot do that, and doesn’t see a time where he will be able to do that in the near future, he breaks out Chessmaster and begins to seek games against higher rated opponents. After a few wins, his rating climbs, and it becomes addicting. He finds that it is much easier to swindle points than it is to trudge through the mire, losing some and winning some, never making real headway.
Aaron, on the other hand, is a fifteen year-old latch-key-kid who loves chess, but is unsupervised from the hours of 3pm, when he gets home from school, to 7pm, when his parents return home from work. He also spends his afternoons on chessisgreat.com, and would love to improve but he has severe A.D.D., and reading books is super difficult for him, although he has a deep love for playing. He sees the games the Masters play and he wants to play just like them, but he just can’t seem to find it in him to do things the right way. So, out comes Fritz and off he goes, right to the top. He knows he isn’t learning anything and maybe he even knows he’ll be caught someday, but it’s worth seeing that 2,000+ rating behind his name. It makes him feel good on the Internet, which is basically his world because, well, because he’s fifteen and spends time playing chess. Some nice girl will like him, someday, but for now, it’s all about his kingdom, which lies just beyond the monitor that’s slowly rotting his brain and stealing his morals.
Bruce signs on to chessisgreat.com to play a specific buddy, whom he knows from the local chess club. Bruce cannot beat his buddy, and knows damn well that it’ll be a month of Sundays before he does. When the hammer hits the iron, he’s just simply tired of losing. So, he fires up Arena and uses an engine in a few of their battles. Hearing his friend tell him how much he’s improving and that he’s doing great is well worth the lie he has decided to live. When he gets beat badly at the club by that same friend, he can just say that he’s tired, or having an off day. Oh, what tangled lives we lead, when once we practice...
I have been busting people for cheating on the Net longer than I care to admit, and the fictitious cheaters above are just THREE examples as to reasons why someone would choose to not play their own games. Trust me, there are fifty-eleven others, and more waiting to come out of the woodwork. Just when I think I’ve heard them all, someone comes along with a new one.
The point to my long-winded post is that we simply do not know, not all the time, why someone does the things they do. That is, unless money is involved, and then pinpointing their motivations becomes a tad easier. Of course, some folks just want to cheat for the sake of cheating. Some of them actually enjoy maliciously taking the hard-earned points of others, and watching them become upset over it. Some folks want a big rating and they don’t care how they get it, and other people actually want to get caught, for one reason or another. Nothing is ever as it seems – trust me on that one.
I feel very strongly about cheating and chess. I loathe a cheater, and will never do so myself. Never have I, and never will I, cheat in a game of chess. You might find me with an ace up my sleeve at a family poker game, for kicks and giggles, but I’ll never shortchange the most beautiful game to ever grace the rock we call Earth. That you can bet on. Also, I will continue to bust players on the Internet who use software assistance, for as long as I’m able to spot their cheating asses. Will it solve anything? Nope. Cheating is here to stay, but I can play a small role in the prevention of it, maybe, and that’s what we all should do.
Here are some broad, very general tips on things to watch out for if you suspect your opponent is cheating on your favorite chess playing site:
1. big slow-game rating, tiny bullet or blitz rating. Not always a dead giveaway, but definitely an arrow pointing in that direction. Normal variations are 300 points or less. So, a 1500 bullet player with a standard rating of 1800 isn’t necessarily cause for alarm. However, an 1100 touting a 2300 standard rating should be looked into. Quickly. There are always exceptions. I see titled players regularly on the ICC with 1300 bullet ratings. Some people just don’t think that quickly, or operate well under time pressure. Needless to say, if that IM had more than 1-minute, he’d likely be able to outplay his opponents, and badly.
2. odd king shifts, when there doesn’t appear to be any attack on it. Engines love odd king shifts. For instance, if the engine wants to prepare, as white, for an f4 shove but sees that a queen or bishop could come out and harass it with a check, it may move its king to h1, just in case, whereas very few 1600 players on the Net are going to see that and prepare so thoroughly. Most players attack, not pre-defend. Watch those odd king shifts.
3. really strong, out of place looking pawn pushes, *especially* if they are sacrifices. Now, I’m not one to bad-mouth any chess player, as I feel we are all a part of a very cool thing, but really, what 1300 is going to sacrifice their d-pawn to make clearance for a brutal N outpost? Very, very few. An engine will, though. You betcha. Watch for really super slick pawn pushes, particularly in the middle and end game.
4. finally, and this one is very loose, watch for kingside pawn storms, especially when both players have castled on the same side. The reason being that an engine, even a weak one, will be able to see accurately over ten moves deep, and know if it’s safe to start shoving g and h pawns down its opponent’s throat. We as human players, however, have been (mostly) conditioned to *not* push pawns that are in front of our kings. It doesn’t feel natural, it feels risky and uncomfortable. Now, a real-life Expert or above player will surely launch pawn storms, but a 1400 isn’t going to if he or she wants to survive. Like I said, it’s a semi-weak sign but a sign nonetheless.
There are a ton of other things, but entire seminars can and are held on the subject of chess cheating. I feel that no matter what your motivations, if you cheat at a chess game, it says something about you as a person. If you’ll steal a dime, you’ll steal a quarter, type thing. Likely, there are other issues in that person’s life that will lead them to cheating at a chess game.
One of the best ways to keep the game of chess honest is just not to cheat. Don’t do it, under any circumstances, even if it’s a friendly sparring match with a good friend. Play the game, or else it starts to play you, and what fun is that? There is no “good feeling” or sense of accomplishment when we defeat a player using an engine. There just isn’t. As chess players, we win and lose and draw. That’s just the way it is. In order to truly improve however, we have to obey the rules. Nothing is gained by cheating, not in chess and not in anything else.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Will I Ever be a GM?
If you frequent chess forums and/or chess playing sites with any regularity, I’m sure you have heard this question asked a million times. Heck, maybe you’ve asked it yourself. The funny thing is, I’m not sure why it’s ever asked, really. The answer is almost always a resounding NO.
How do I know that those folks won’t ever become Grandmasters? It’s simple. If your actual chess rating is 2300 or 2400 (2500+ is GM level chess) and you have an actual shot at the Grandmaster title, you will not be on a forum asking how to gain 100 points. You’ll be studying and playing at tournaments. Instead, it’s always the 1100-1600 crowd that seems to ask questions like those. Of course, I’m not saying that every 1100 who has ever asked if he could become a Grandmaster hasn’t actually become one, but it’s like winning the lottery – your chances are really, really low.
The average USCF rating is 1391. *Average*. That means that a good portion of actual tournament players fall below that mark. It’s really intriguing to walk around some of the big tournaments that have hundreds of competitors. In Las Vegas, for instance, the tournaments are held in huge ballrooms, inside one of the big hotels. You walk past row after row after row of people who are intensely into their games. They are all playing the exact same game, which is chess. However, only the last five or six rows feature any players who are worth a damn. 90% of the room is filled with patzers, trying hard to make their way to one of those front rows.
A rating of 2,000 USCF makes you an official chess Expert. That alone is an awesome feat that very, very few chess players ever achieve. And yet, Experts still have 200 hard-to-earn points before they become a “lowly” Master with a 2,200 rating. The Master then has 300 points to climb through if he wants to get near a Grandmaster title. See what I’m getting at here? The 9th grade kid who finds he loves chess and has set himself a Grandmaster goal is going to find things out the hard way.
Of course, setting goals is never a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong here, I feel that goal-setting is very healthy, but only if they are actually attainable. Instead of announcing that you will stop at nothing to earn the Grandmaster title when you are rated 1550, maybe tell folks that 1800 is within view, and see if you can jump that hurdle. Once you crest the 1800 mark, you can start hitting the books and seriously consider shooting for Expert. If you continue to improve from there, Master may not be out of sight. But remember, the higher your rating the harder it is to improve on it, in general.
For example, if a 1400 rated player has taken a whole year off of tournament play to study and improve their chess, it may not be very difficult at all to fly through 300 points and acquire a rating of 1700. However, unless you are a super bright prodigy, improvement after that will prove to be slow and painful. Instead of setting unattainable goals, always bring you’re A-game to tournaments. That way, you are sure to get as far as you personally can. Wherever you plateau, if in fact you do, should be acceptable to you no matter if you secretly want to be a GM or not. We all secretly want to be GMs, it goes with the territory.
How do I know that those folks won’t ever become Grandmasters? It’s simple. If your actual chess rating is 2300 or 2400 (2500+ is GM level chess) and you have an actual shot at the Grandmaster title, you will not be on a forum asking how to gain 100 points. You’ll be studying and playing at tournaments. Instead, it’s always the 1100-1600 crowd that seems to ask questions like those. Of course, I’m not saying that every 1100 who has ever asked if he could become a Grandmaster hasn’t actually become one, but it’s like winning the lottery – your chances are really, really low.
The average USCF rating is 1391. *Average*. That means that a good portion of actual tournament players fall below that mark. It’s really intriguing to walk around some of the big tournaments that have hundreds of competitors. In Las Vegas, for instance, the tournaments are held in huge ballrooms, inside one of the big hotels. You walk past row after row after row of people who are intensely into their games. They are all playing the exact same game, which is chess. However, only the last five or six rows feature any players who are worth a damn. 90% of the room is filled with patzers, trying hard to make their way to one of those front rows.
A rating of 2,000 USCF makes you an official chess Expert. That alone is an awesome feat that very, very few chess players ever achieve. And yet, Experts still have 200 hard-to-earn points before they become a “lowly” Master with a 2,200 rating. The Master then has 300 points to climb through if he wants to get near a Grandmaster title. See what I’m getting at here? The 9th grade kid who finds he loves chess and has set himself a Grandmaster goal is going to find things out the hard way.
Of course, setting goals is never a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong here, I feel that goal-setting is very healthy, but only if they are actually attainable. Instead of announcing that you will stop at nothing to earn the Grandmaster title when you are rated 1550, maybe tell folks that 1800 is within view, and see if you can jump that hurdle. Once you crest the 1800 mark, you can start hitting the books and seriously consider shooting for Expert. If you continue to improve from there, Master may not be out of sight. But remember, the higher your rating the harder it is to improve on it, in general.
For example, if a 1400 rated player has taken a whole year off of tournament play to study and improve their chess, it may not be very difficult at all to fly through 300 points and acquire a rating of 1700. However, unless you are a super bright prodigy, improvement after that will prove to be slow and painful. Instead of setting unattainable goals, always bring you’re A-game to tournaments. That way, you are sure to get as far as you personally can. Wherever you plateau, if in fact you do, should be acceptable to you no matter if you secretly want to be a GM or not. We all secretly want to be GMs, it goes with the territory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)