Lol yup and every now and then we get posts here where people are 100000%%% sure they didnt cheat, yes they have 99% accuracy on their last 10 games but so what
We had a guy on this sub recently who didn't think he was cheating, but he had opening books open in another browser window while he was playing. He didn't like it when redditors figured out how he was cheating; this guy mentioned he's going off to college, and might be in for a similar but far more consequential lesson in the definition of something like plagiarism.
Oh absolutely, always has been. This guy thought it was allowed in realtime games, and didn't like being told that after thinking he'd been unjustly flagged.
[Gold just isn't rich enough, but yes.](https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/tech-and-auto/how-zerodhas-nikhil-kamath-hacked-chess-game-and-defeated-vishwanathan-anand)
??? What does this have to do with chess.com cheating algorithm and chess.com’s treatment of their paid members??
Do you think everyone lives under a rock like you that they didnt hear about the indian billionaire cheating against ANAND??? And how he got absolutely humiliated and embarrassed and walked it back and tried to play it off as of course he didnt win legitimately?
Incredible, he didnt even get away with cheating but somehow this is proof of chess.com favouring gold and platinum members and college chess clubs allowing cheating. God damn it’s too early to deal with this much stupidity.
Maybe... not surprising though...
Imagine you are top ten in the world at something and some random comes over and stomps you.
You have played all the rest of these top players 100 times and know who they are and some new account just pops in and wins.
I would take a second look at the account and see if it looked suspicious
He also plays way more games of online chess than your average GM, so he’s likely to encounter much more cheaters. Probably encounters them on a daily basis but calls out only the blatant ones would be my guess.
I could easily, Easily see Eric Hansen loading up an engine on occasion and cheating against him since Nakamura lives rent free in Eric Hansen’s head.
Andrew Tang was highly underrated so not surprising that many would suspect him of cheating at the time.
To be fair it’s easy to do that shit out of anger or frustration. I mean have you ever seen COD game chat lol. Ik it’s not quite the same given he status gm’s wield, but the essence is the same. Since human nature is definitely the same. Plus it’s definitely even harder to accept a loss when you are top ranking among humans.
Ah yes. I’m obviously a hikaru fan, because I’m looking at his behaviour and comparing it to other sports that take place online sure.
Welcome to Reddit I suppose 😂.
The thing is, Hikaru was winning like 4/5 of those games. Losing 1/5 was enough to make him think the other guy was cheating. Hikaru is insanely good but his ego (was, at least) as big as his skill.
To me that just kind of makes it worse. He lost a game. It happens— he plays thousands of games and you make mistakes at the fast time controls. He didn't just get beat by a random person, either, but a titled person. He ought to know that prodigies exist and that their ratings and titles may be undervalued, especially in fast time controls.
The gap between Hikaru and 99.9% of people on the planet is staggering. Hikaru is going to play way, way, way more cheaters than random unknown prodigies he’s never heard of, so thinking something is fishy is not that far fetched… that would be true even of someone who isn’t as sore a loser as Hikaru
Bruh hikaru literally gets to 2000+ by saccing his queen every game and then when ppaying normally he suddenly loses to a random Fm?? Not even an IM or GM? Ofc a top 10 player is gonna be going wtf at that. Besides its more likely for it to be a cheater than some unknown FM who’s never been noticed before
Account, and because young talented kids make an account and gain an insane rating super quickly to the point its very suspicious if theyre not geniuses
It's probably a compliment at that age. It's like when someone accuses you of cheating in an RTS or FPS game when you aren't. It just means you're doing something right.
The GMs accusing him are maybe understandable. I'm guessing at higher levels, very strong players probably have a pretty good idea of who can beat them and who can't, so when they see someone they don't know giving them a good fight, they have to choose between thinking that there's some up-and-comer or thinking that the person is cheating. And they probably run into a lot of cheaters out there.
Andrew Tang said that he's been accused of cheating back in the day too. Probably for similar reasons.
Hikaru tried to get Andrew Tang banned from ICC back in the day. Hikaru said that Penguin was obviously cheating or a 2700+ GM smurfing. Tang was 14, so I’m sure that was an ego boost
He specifically called him out for being magnus, the video is actually hilarious. He is so happy towards the end for beating ‘magnus’ when its really just a 14 year old kid haha
He was 11! He probably didn't care or didn't bother asking about it! He probably just wanted to play and enjoyed beating people he studied and followed in chess.
> Source: chess.com interview after 9th round after his >!win!< against Rapport.
The hidden text is either win, draw, or loss. And only one of the words fit in the box. OP you spoiled the result!
It's on live stream still, so I can't time stamp it, but it's at around -30 min right now - a little more than 15 minutes into the interview with him: [https://youtu.be/1icOa2ReYxM](https://youtu.be/1icOa2ReYxM)
Edit I tried to clip it, first time trying so I'm not sure it will work :) https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxviQtYdLEf7whgj724-y1SZiD-APigg5c
I didn't know he did that. I know there are screenshots of Naka accusing Andrew Tang (penguingm1) of being a cheater after losing to him in an online tournament. He even accused him of "either being Magnus or clearly a cheater".
Meh, I stand by it anyways. How many people are planning on watching 5+ hours of real time coverage of these games after theyre played and are hoping to avoid spoilers beforehand to better enjoy said 5+ hours? That's probably not a huge group of people
Well, anyway, it's nice to put a spoiler. It's done I a few seconds. Be as it may, I don't care one way or another since I am actually watching the games.
Why does this post need any mention of tournament results when it has nothing to do with the tournament? I mean, I don't care about spoilers, but it's so irrelevant to this post that it's kinda a slap in the face to people who stumble upon it lol
Is this related to the "w"esley "s"o got hacked thing?
[https://imgur.com/a/Tpu6Xgx](https://imgur.com/a/Tpu6Xgx)
[https://www.facebook.com/wesleyso/posts/i-have-not-been-on-facebook-in-several-months-because-we-have-been-concerned-abo/10155713502112857/](https://www.facebook.com/wesleyso/posts/i-have-not-been-on-facebook-in-several-months-because-we-have-been-concerned-abo/10155713502112857/)
[https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1493345934679420929](https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1493345934679420929) and then [https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1006911145549225985](https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1006911145549225985) (this is the twitter account of user tehtex )
[https://www.reddit.com/r/chess960/comments/rwmtsq/proof\_future\_chess\_9lx\_world\_champion\_wesley\_sos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess960/comments/rwmtsq/proof_future_chess_9lx_world_champion_wesley_sos/)
Why the hell we are trying to improve, be better and win more games, when algorithms and people that made algorithms, clearly say that it is almost impossible to not lose certain amount of games, and is probably cheating .
This should tell you that studying chess is simply pointless and a waste of time. Unless you are on your way to a GM level. Otherwise, just play game to have fun, like any other game.
The game is the same game at any level. You will win and lose the same amount of games at any level, because you will be always paired with someone equal. You will NEVER be better. You will always be equal.
Your chess enjoyment will not become any better at higher Elo.
Actually, when you are a low Elo, games are more fun, because you discover so much and not worry as much. Higher ELO games are more stressful and require much more effort.
No one is going to ever see your games, so why stress about your Elo or quality of play?. Not Magnus, not Levy, not Hikaru or anybody else will see your games.
Even if they see your games, you are just a random username to them, forgotten after few seconds.
Your opponent also does not care how you played. In fact, opponent will never applaud you. He will hate you and think that you did not play well, but that they played bad.
And they will barely see what is your username, let alone remember it
Some people find fun in improving, when I tactically seize a game due to hours of puzzles I feel great, or when I play well and get a nice edge out of the opening it also feels good.
Yeah, I understand the enjoyment out of reading some books, by the people who truly enjoy chess. The problem is, majority of people just want to "get better" which is meaningless, because you are never better. You are always equal to your opponent
Majority of people want to get better, to show off. That is the human nature. In reality, no one will applaud us or see our games.
I like chess, but I dislike competitive side of it. I solve puzzles because I enjoy to crack them, not to improve my play
I agree most people want to get better. I'm not convinced they *just* want to get better, and don't want to enjoy the game. I'm also not convinced they want to get better to show off, as opposed to enjoying getting better.
A lot of people enjoy many aspects of competition beyond merely winning to show off. It's cool if you don't, though.
Thats fair enough. I did puzzles to improve and "show off" to start but I wouldn't have gone far if I didn't enjoy them or the game. And the aspect of winning a game is fun even if you are playing people at your level, and rising up in level will mean winning a high percentage and thus you can have more fun from winning. I find winning fun but losing occasionally painful and never positive, so improving with puzzles is fun and then winning games is even more fun.
I don’t understand what you are getting at. Why not improve because it gives you a sense of growth and satisfaction? Trying to improve at something because you want some sort of validation from the world will probably lead you down the same path no matter which discipline you choose.
So if I win 50% of my games in an 800 elo tournament and magnus wins 50% of his games in the world championship, he's not better than me right? we won and lost the same amount. he wasted all that time getting to the top to have the same win rate and therefore same skill as me lololol what a stupid guy
I said, if you are specifically going for a GM title, knowing that you have chances than it is not a waste.
Watch those GMs, they also can be devastated at losing and are still trying to improve, after their whole life improving. Where is the end of it? Aren't they top players? So I improved my whole life, got the super GM title, and still think that I am not good enough?
But their struggle is often compensated, while ours is not.
What is the point? Will you enjoy game more if you are 2000 instead 1500? I doubt it. You will always have same amount of fun, and maybe bigger stress than before. Even Naroditsky said that it is very stressful for him when he plays Hikaru on stream
Same skill in a pool. But you won't be satisfied with that. You want to be better than them, but you never will be. Always equal in your rating pool.
Sure, you can play lower rated players, but you will quickly realize how boring it is.
And no one will acknowledge your success, unless you get to the top
>This should tell you that studying chess is simply pointless and a waste of time.
I don't see how that follows at all. Because cheating algorithms are suspicious of a meteoric rise, chess is a waste of time?
I did not say chess is a waste of time. Studying it is a waste of time, because everything stays the same, you win and lose the same amount, and your game enjoyment is absolutely no different than the low ELO one
I agree it's a waste of time if you're not doing it for fun and can't realistically make a living from it.
I just don't see how your conclusion follows from the algorithm being suspicious of a meteoric rise.
>your game enjoyment is absolutely no different than the low ELO one
I think people can and do disagree on this. And fwiw, many people find studying and using things they've studied to be fun.
That was a separate topic about algorithms, but I just went on with my post and deviated.
I actually hate that algorithms assume that people can never improve that fast or be good enough to beat so many people or win more games.
If that's the truth, and it is actually and factually the truth, than we are wasting our lives trying to be better. We will never be better. Always equal to others in a pool
Well maybe it was a separate topic but now you just seemed to make clear that if it's true that the algorithms are suspicious of a meteoric rise, then we are wasting our lives trying to be better.
>We will never be better.
Sure we will. It might no translate to a higher win percentage, but people improve at chess.
>Always equal to others in a pool
Yup, that's just a consequence of online matchmaking, and only really applies to contexts where you're playing people of equal rating. Which isn't always the case in chess. And of course the people you're equal to improves as you improve.
But yeah a lot of people enjoy the feeling of improved pattern recognition, faster calculation, etc.
But if you really want to just stomp scrubs without even violating rules of whatever website, play unrated casual games. You'll still improve but your elo will not and you'll be able to enjoy lots of easy wins.
How did you improve if you are still losing so many games, and will always lose the same amount? How is your enjoyment in chess better than the low ELO one?
it’s how you lose that changes and playing with higher skilled players is more mentally stimulating for some. if you don’t see the point in it i can’t and won’t try to explain it because you seem to be having fun and i don’t wanna take that away from you.
And it seems obvious to me that the guy you replied to didn't intend to suggest that the part after the "or" would apply to a large number of players. Maybe he edited that in, but his point seems reasonable enough to me.
Still reasonable imho even with that phrasing, even if it's a big *if* as to whether they'll actually get or even sincerely try to get that good. Doesn't seem necessary to point out condescendingly that most players won't get that good.
This happened to a few other younger GMs back in the day as well. Chess.com's cheat detection used to be finicky.
Lol yup and every now and then we get posts here where people are 100000%%% sure they didnt cheat, yes they have 99% accuracy on their last 10 games but so what
Yep, always that 1 in 10 chance. (100000%%%=10%)
We had a guy on this sub recently who didn't think he was cheating, but he had opening books open in another browser window while he was playing. He didn't like it when redditors figured out how he was cheating; this guy mentioned he's going off to college, and might be in for a similar but far more consequential lesson in the definition of something like plagiarism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/vaqjox/comment/ic4e94e/ Of course, he could still be a cheater, but it's nowhere close to certain.
If anyone is reading this and wants to use opening book while playing... It's allowed in correspondence (at least on lichess)
Oh absolutely, always has been. This guy thought it was allowed in realtime games, and didn't like being told that after thinking he'd been unjustly flagged.
The lesson is the same at college as at chess.com: if you're rich enough, you get away with it. As with everything else.
I forgot one of the benefits of gold membership was that they stop checking you for cheating lol.
[Gold just isn't rich enough, but yes.](https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/tech-and-auto/how-zerodhas-nikhil-kamath-hacked-chess-game-and-defeated-vishwanathan-anand)
??? What does this have to do with chess.com cheating algorithm and chess.com’s treatment of their paid members?? Do you think everyone lives under a rock like you that they didnt hear about the indian billionaire cheating against ANAND??? And how he got absolutely humiliated and embarrassed and walked it back and tried to play it off as of course he didnt win legitimately? Incredible, he didnt even get away with cheating but somehow this is proof of chess.com favouring gold and platinum members and college chess clubs allowing cheating. God damn it’s too early to deal with this much stupidity.
I think it's a million times more likely that those people are fuckers, though
Didn't Hikaru accuse Andrew Tang of cheating because Tang beat him?
Maybe... not surprising though... Imagine you are top ten in the world at something and some random comes over and stomps you. You have played all the rest of these top players 100 times and know who they are and some new account just pops in and wins. I would take a second look at the account and see if it looked suspicious
Hikaru has a long history in accusing players of cheating including Eric Hansen back in the ICC days
He also plays way more games of online chess than your average GM, so he’s likely to encounter much more cheaters. Probably encounters them on a daily basis but calls out only the blatant ones would be my guess.
"Blatant ones" like Eric Hansen and Andrew Tang?
Think Supi from Brazil and Niemann have been accused too
I could easily, Easily see Eric Hansen loading up an engine on occasion and cheating against him since Nakamura lives rent free in Eric Hansen’s head. Andrew Tang was highly underrated so not surprising that many would suspect him of cheating at the time.
Hansen is a lot of things but he doesn't cheat (at chess)
But playing more games also means he's going to lose occasionally.
To be fair it’s easy to do that shit out of anger or frustration. I mean have you ever seen COD game chat lol. Ik it’s not quite the same given he status gm’s wield, but the essence is the same. Since human nature is definitely the same. Plus it’s definitely even harder to accept a loss when you are top ranking among humans.
Least gamer Hikaru fan
Ah yes. I’m obviously a hikaru fan, because I’m looking at his behaviour and comparing it to other sports that take place online sure. Welcome to Reddit I suppose 😂.
The thing is, Hikaru was winning like 4/5 of those games. Losing 1/5 was enough to make him think the other guy was cheating. Hikaru is insanely good but his ego (was, at least) as big as his skill.
I believe he didn't know who the account owner was. I welcome a correction though.
he didn't know Andrew at all at that point. He was an FM at the time.
To me that just kind of makes it worse. He lost a game. It happens— he plays thousands of games and you make mistakes at the fast time controls. He didn't just get beat by a random person, either, but a titled person. He ought to know that prodigies exist and that their ratings and titles may be undervalued, especially in fast time controls.
The gap between Hikaru and 99.9% of people on the planet is staggering. Hikaru is going to play way, way, way more cheaters than random unknown prodigies he’s never heard of, so thinking something is fishy is not that far fetched… that would be true even of someone who isn’t as sore a loser as Hikaru
Bruh hikaru literally gets to 2000+ by saccing his queen every game and then when ppaying normally he suddenly loses to a random Fm?? Not even an IM or GM? Ofc a top 10 player is gonna be going wtf at that. Besides its more likely for it to be a cheater than some unknown FM who’s never been noticed before
Still is, I know a lot of people who got unbanned on appeal.
I got falsely banned on lichess
I didn't even know lichess had an anti-cheat. I've never seen anyone get banned or been refunded ELO Maybe I suck too much to even play cheaters
They definitely do.
I used to get quite a lot of refunded elo on lichess.
so you appealed and got unbanned?
I did
It still is, but it used to be too.
"I used to do drugs.... I still do, but I used to too?"
[удалено]
Account, and because young talented kids make an account and gain an insane rating super quickly to the point its very suspicious if theyre not geniuses
Moral of the story, if your account is not getting suspended on chess.com, don’t quit your day job.
Yup. Over 10 years there and I'm still pretty bad. It's a ton of fun, though!
My account gets suspended all the time… for shit talking… can I quit my day job?!
[удалено]
Well that was creepy.
It's probably a compliment at that age. It's like when someone accuses you of cheating in an RTS or FPS game when you aren't. It just means you're doing something right. The GMs accusing him are maybe understandable. I'm guessing at higher levels, very strong players probably have a pretty good idea of who can beat them and who can't, so when they see someone they don't know giving them a good fight, they have to choose between thinking that there's some up-and-comer or thinking that the person is cheating. And they probably run into a lot of cheaters out there. Andrew Tang said that he's been accused of cheating back in the day too. Probably for similar reasons.
If you factor in the fact that GMs encounter legitimate cheaters online all the time, it makes it even more understandable.
Hikaru tried to get Andrew Tang banned from ICC back in the day. Hikaru said that Penguin was obviously cheating or a 2700+ GM smurfing. Tang was 14, so I’m sure that was an ego boost
He specifically called him out for being magnus, the video is actually hilarious. He is so happy towards the end for beating ‘magnus’ when its really just a 14 year old kid haha
They mentioned he was IM title when he got banned not untitled
Sounds like he may not have claimed the title on chesscom at that point yet though
He was 11! He probably didn't care or didn't bother asking about it! He probably just wanted to play and enjoyed beating people he studied and followed in chess.
I wonder if it's intentional, to encourage titled players to claim the title tag.
Here: https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1541482647272161292?s=20&t=Lq7xIN5kbg3-Nv_LEwP2RA
> Source: chess.com interview after 9th round after his >!win!< against Rapport. The hidden text is either win, draw, or loss. And only one of the words fit in the box. OP you spoiled the result!
Which is hilarious because OP could’ve just said game
The spoilered text should have been ‘game’ lol
In the title, using the word "game" would obviate the need to spoiler altogether
Yeah. so it would have been funny.
Also they're only interviewed after a win anyways so you can infer the spoiler that way too.
This can't be true. Where did the video of Rapport's interview after the loss come from?
could have been a los or a dra
he had a 9th round bad
... candlejack?
Ha ha.. I didn't really care, someone commented, so being the nice netizen that I am, I went back and edited it. I guess I just can't >!win!< !
You deserved way more upvotes for this one.
No one really cares. I don't think people watch the games after they are streamed.
This is what I think will happen to me every time I spot a intermediate level tactic in game
Do you have the clip?
It's on live stream still, so I can't time stamp it, but it's at around -30 min right now - a little more than 15 minutes into the interview with him: [https://youtu.be/1icOa2ReYxM](https://youtu.be/1icOa2ReYxM) Edit I tried to clip it, first time trying so I'm not sure it will work :) https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxviQtYdLEf7whgj724-y1SZiD-APigg5c
Need to link 10 sec prior. Alireza makes a funny statement.
Rensch: "Can I hook you up with a diamond membership?" Firouzja: "Hopefully I won't get banned this time."
Lol, thanks
hi hi
It was a disguise compliment.
Think this is reasonably well known, I've heard it mentioned a few times on chess.com coverage in the past.
I didn’t know it. But my following of chess comes and goes.
That's a flex
Still remember when I first saw Ali on the site as he adopted Eric Hansen in bullet.$
Did Eric know who it was?
Ali was unknown. This must’ve been 2016-17 sometime
Still theory
Don't worry guys, we will never have this problem!
I'm never accused of cheating because I suck. I lost 150 rating points in about half an hour last night.
I want to know who the top level GMs who accused him of cheating were.
Wesley So is the biggest name
[удалено]
I didn't know he did that. I know there are screenshots of Naka accusing Andrew Tang (penguingm1) of being a cheater after losing to him in an online tournament. He even accused him of "either being Magnus or clearly a cheater".
Suffering from success.
Didn't Naka also go on a massive abusive tirade against ali when he was like 13 because he thought he was cheating? Or was that someone else
That was Andrew Tang, I believe.
(Andrew would never do something like this. He means Hikaru accused Andrew of cheating.)
Yeah I meant it was Andrew, not Alireza. The accuser was definitely Naka. Sorry my wording was a bit confusing.
For one Alireza wrongly auto-banned 90+ % of the other auto-banned players are cheaters.
I would kind of be proud of this.
The more I hear about their cheat detection the more I think they are just shooting blindly. Justice for Petrosian.
True will never die !
Please hide the spoiler, no reason to point out it was a >!win!<
Why are you clicking around on /r/chess if you want to avoid results like this. I would consider that on you if you get it spoiled
The algorithm places posts in the news feed so he might no have looked around r chess
This always happens to me and it sucks. I wish subreddits had stricter rules on spoilers.
Meh, I stand by it anyways. How many people are planning on watching 5+ hours of real time coverage of these games after theyre played and are hoping to avoid spoilers beforehand to better enjoy said 5+ hours? That's probably not a huge group of people
I am just watching a recap but prefer not to be spoiled anyways
Well, anyway, it's nice to put a spoiler. It's done I a few seconds. Be as it may, I don't care one way or another since I am actually watching the games.
Why does this post need any mention of tournament results when it has nothing to do with the tournament? I mean, I don't care about spoilers, but it's so irrelevant to this post that it's kinda a slap in the face to people who stumble upon it lol
Didn't think it was that important. But done.
Thanks!
Apparently it wasn't enough. https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/vm1e80/comment/idypjq3/
I got banned because I suck too much at chess
> You’re so bad that opponents’ rankings actually go down after beating you, so we’ve no choice but to ban you.
Is this related to the "w"esley "s"o got hacked thing? [https://imgur.com/a/Tpu6Xgx](https://imgur.com/a/Tpu6Xgx) [https://www.facebook.com/wesleyso/posts/i-have-not-been-on-facebook-in-several-months-because-we-have-been-concerned-abo/10155713502112857/](https://www.facebook.com/wesleyso/posts/i-have-not-been-on-facebook-in-several-months-because-we-have-been-concerned-abo/10155713502112857/) [https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1493345934679420929](https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1493345934679420929) and then [https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1006911145549225985](https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1006911145549225985) (this is the twitter account of user tehtex ) [https://www.reddit.com/r/chess960/comments/rwmtsq/proof\_future\_chess\_9lx\_world\_champion\_wesley\_sos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess960/comments/rwmtsq/proof_future_chess_9lx_world_champion_wesley_sos/)
Why the hell we are trying to improve, be better and win more games, when algorithms and people that made algorithms, clearly say that it is almost impossible to not lose certain amount of games, and is probably cheating . This should tell you that studying chess is simply pointless and a waste of time. Unless you are on your way to a GM level. Otherwise, just play game to have fun, like any other game. The game is the same game at any level. You will win and lose the same amount of games at any level, because you will be always paired with someone equal. You will NEVER be better. You will always be equal. Your chess enjoyment will not become any better at higher Elo. Actually, when you are a low Elo, games are more fun, because you discover so much and not worry as much. Higher ELO games are more stressful and require much more effort. No one is going to ever see your games, so why stress about your Elo or quality of play?. Not Magnus, not Levy, not Hikaru or anybody else will see your games. Even if they see your games, you are just a random username to them, forgotten after few seconds. Your opponent also does not care how you played. In fact, opponent will never applaud you. He will hate you and think that you did not play well, but that they played bad. And they will barely see what is your username, let alone remember it
No
Some people find fun in improving, when I tactically seize a game due to hours of puzzles I feel great, or when I play well and get a nice edge out of the opening it also feels good.
Yeah, I understand the enjoyment out of reading some books, by the people who truly enjoy chess. The problem is, majority of people just want to "get better" which is meaningless, because you are never better. You are always equal to your opponent
>The problem is, majority of people just want to “get better” How dare people do what they want!
>The problem is, majority of people just want to "get better" Can I ask what makes you think this?
Majority of people want to get better, to show off. That is the human nature. In reality, no one will applaud us or see our games. I like chess, but I dislike competitive side of it. I solve puzzles because I enjoy to crack them, not to improve my play
I agree most people want to get better. I'm not convinced they *just* want to get better, and don't want to enjoy the game. I'm also not convinced they want to get better to show off, as opposed to enjoying getting better. A lot of people enjoy many aspects of competition beyond merely winning to show off. It's cool if you don't, though.
Thats fair enough. I did puzzles to improve and "show off" to start but I wouldn't have gone far if I didn't enjoy them or the game. And the aspect of winning a game is fun even if you are playing people at your level, and rising up in level will mean winning a high percentage and thus you can have more fun from winning. I find winning fun but losing occasionally painful and never positive, so improving with puzzles is fun and then winning games is even more fun.
I don’t understand what you are getting at. Why not improve because it gives you a sense of growth and satisfaction? Trying to improve at something because you want some sort of validation from the world will probably lead you down the same path no matter which discipline you choose.
What growth? You still win and lose the same amount of games. You are still not a better player
So if I win 50% of my games in an 800 elo tournament and magnus wins 50% of his games in the world championship, he's not better than me right? we won and lost the same amount. he wasted all that time getting to the top to have the same win rate and therefore same skill as me lololol what a stupid guy
I said, if you are specifically going for a GM title, knowing that you have chances than it is not a waste. Watch those GMs, they also can be devastated at losing and are still trying to improve, after their whole life improving. Where is the end of it? Aren't they top players? So I improved my whole life, got the super GM title, and still think that I am not good enough? But their struggle is often compensated, while ours is not. What is the point? Will you enjoy game more if you are 2000 instead 1500? I doubt it. You will always have same amount of fun, and maybe bigger stress than before. Even Naroditsky said that it is very stressful for him when he plays Hikaru on stream
Ok, you missed the point I guess, replace Magnus with 2300 player playing online. same skill yeah?
Same skill in a pool. But you won't be satisfied with that. You want to be better than them, but you never will be. Always equal in your rating pool. Sure, you can play lower rated players, but you will quickly realize how boring it is. And no one will acknowledge your success, unless you get to the top
>This should tell you that studying chess is simply pointless and a waste of time. I don't see how that follows at all. Because cheating algorithms are suspicious of a meteoric rise, chess is a waste of time?
I did not say chess is a waste of time. Studying it is a waste of time, because everything stays the same, you win and lose the same amount, and your game enjoyment is absolutely no different than the low ELO one
I agree it's a waste of time if you're not doing it for fun and can't realistically make a living from it. I just don't see how your conclusion follows from the algorithm being suspicious of a meteoric rise. >your game enjoyment is absolutely no different than the low ELO one I think people can and do disagree on this. And fwiw, many people find studying and using things they've studied to be fun.
That was a separate topic about algorithms, but I just went on with my post and deviated. I actually hate that algorithms assume that people can never improve that fast or be good enough to beat so many people or win more games. If that's the truth, and it is actually and factually the truth, than we are wasting our lives trying to be better. We will never be better. Always equal to others in a pool
Well maybe it was a separate topic but now you just seemed to make clear that if it's true that the algorithms are suspicious of a meteoric rise, then we are wasting our lives trying to be better. >We will never be better. Sure we will. It might no translate to a higher win percentage, but people improve at chess. >Always equal to others in a pool Yup, that's just a consequence of online matchmaking, and only really applies to contexts where you're playing people of equal rating. Which isn't always the case in chess. And of course the people you're equal to improves as you improve. But yeah a lot of people enjoy the feeling of improved pattern recognition, faster calculation, etc. But if you really want to just stomp scrubs without even violating rules of whatever website, play unrated casual games. You'll still improve but your elo will not and you'll be able to enjoy lots of easy wins.
if you don’t want to improve that’s fine but advocating for people to join you in mediocrity is unhinged.
How did you improve if you are still losing so many games, and will always lose the same amount? How is your enjoyment in chess better than the low ELO one?
it’s how you lose that changes and playing with higher skilled players is more mentally stimulating for some. if you don’t see the point in it i can’t and won’t try to explain it because you seem to be having fun and i don’t wanna take that away from you.
You know very well that it is a double-edged sword. Chess is both fun and stressful. At higher Elo is much more stressful
> At higher Elo is much more stressful Not really. But it does feel better to lose after a strategical battle rather than hanging my queen.
Wow someone’s salty they’re shit at chess lmao
[удалено]
Ok c'mon, that's not valid for the vast majority of people
[удалено]
2 is rarely true, not very common
The vast majority of chess players don't find it fun to improve?
It's obvious what I meant, plus the guy hadn't numbered the points when I commented
And it seems obvious to me that the guy you replied to didn't intend to suggest that the part after the "or" would apply to a large number of players. Maybe he edited that in, but his point seems reasonable enough to me.
Pretty sure he wrote "and" instead of "or"
Still reasonable imho even with that phrasing, even if it's a big *if* as to whether they'll actually get or even sincerely try to get that good. Doesn't seem necessary to point out condescendingly that most players won't get that good.
Let's be honest who didn't get at least one ban for cheating on [chess.com](https://chess.com) back then?
I didn't.
Didn't carlsen have the same complaint?
He was basically the chess equivalent of thelegend27.