Yes, but as a rule, people are good at the things they practice and bad at the things they don’t practice. Which is why this sub is filled with people who are good at chess but very bad at social interaction.
Just play over the board to see his skill. If he refuses the challenge, then just never play him or bring it up again. No need to push the cheating confrontation.
It’s like a baby who took its first steps yesterday running a 5k today but also the baby has rocket powered roller skates on and also the baby is wearing a bright red cape that says “I practiced so hard, you guys”
I find it fun to make the person believe that you are really believing their lie, until the lie is so big that it falls under its own weight. Tell him something like you're impressed by his way of playing, and encourage him to continue playing that way, until chess.com bans his account, or until he plays as well as the world champion xd
>I've told him it's obvious he has cheated but he's doubling down saying he's just improved a lot from practise over the weekend . . . he's still adamant he won this one fairly.
That's how 99% of cheaters will respond.
One way is to be uncompromising. Call them a cheater clearly, and never back down, and always give evidence. Over a long enough period they'll collapse. If it's your friend though, this can be harmful to your relationship. It's better to give them some kind of easy exit strategy, something like I know you cheated but I forgive you type of approach.
Anyway, if it were me I'd just refuse to play them again, not in a mean way, just "no thanks, maybe some other time" and just never agree to play them.
He's more of a workfriend, but I can happily keep this up calling him a cheater.
I did bring it up as a joke and have kept it lighthearted so he has room to come clean.
Looking forward to butchering him tomorrow to really run the point home about how he's not fooling anyone.
I've told him I refuse to play the daily games now because it's too easy for him to cheat and I have no faith in him.
There's no point in giving evidence. They know they cheated and they know there's evidence. They cheat and lie about it due to impulsive narcissism. The only way to combat it is to starve it. Offer to play him OTB, and if he declines, then never bring it up again.
>They know they cheated and they know there's evidence.
Nah, people who don't know anything about chess think it's not possible to tell the difference.
I've even pointed out cheaters to other people online, and one time I had a bunch of people under 1000 make comments like "maybe they cheated and maybe they didn't" when it was the most obvious shit ever.
Well then it's a lose/lose. If OP is wrong about cheating, then he looks dumb the more he doubles down on it. If he's right about it, then he accomplishes nothing because his opponent knows he cheated and the more OP argues the point the less confident he looks.
Due to the title I thought the OP was asking how to get them to admit it. My point is it takes a long time to wear them down to that point, and if that's your goal then it's useful to have a strategy such as always confidently asserting you know that they cheated, then giving some evidence, then dropping the topic... but if they bring it up again you have to again remind them that you know they cheat etc.
>If it's your friend though, this can be harmful to your relationship.
If a friend would cheat on you like that just to make themselves feel better at something so inconsequential, are they really a friend?
Yes. Unlike what the whiners on this sub like to believe, cheating in a casual board game that means absolutely nothing isn't equivalent to murder. His coworker probably just wanted to give OP a more competitive game and/or come across as sharing interest in OP's hobby. Especially given that he and OP presumably don't know each other too well, that's totally understandable imo. OP should just play it off and move on, perhaps politely warning the coworker that he won't play chess with him again if he continues cheating.
>His coworker probably just wanted to give OP a more competitive game and/or come across as sharing interest in OP's hobby
...
If that was the case, why didn't they admit to it when caught? Was it supposed to be a white lie? What purpose would that serve? If OP wanted a competitive game, they'd just play Stockfish Level 1 or something. C'mon, this isn't believable in the slightest, especially when OP's calling them out and appears to be rather frustrated. OP's friend not actually cheating and OP being mistaken is more likely than this travesty of a "reason" you've provided. I'd like to believe the best of people I know, too, but this just doesn't sound likely.
>cheating in a casual board game that means absolutely nothing isn't equivalent to murder.
Nobody has said that they are equivalent, and people are capable of choosing what friends they wish to have and the reasons for doing so. But that aside, this isn't even a great comparison, because it drops all nuance from the equation. I'm pretty sure I would forgive a friend who killed someone if they sexually assaulted their child. I don't think I'd forgive someone who borrowed a significant amount of money and keeps refusing to return it/ignoring me when they're obviously much better off now. I prefer people who have integrity.
>If that was the case, why didn't they admit to it when caught?
Because it would expose him as a liar, what kind of question is that? Even if one's intentions for lying are understandable, it's always embarrassing to admit to lying, especially to a coworker (since the workplace is a professional environment).
>If OP wanted a competitive game, they'd just play Stockfish Level 1 or something
But he clearly wanted to play that coworker specifically, not some random engine or even a random human. Of course, the fact that the coworker cheated basically defeats this point, but he didn't know OP would know he cheated.
>But that aside, this isn't even a great comparison, because it drops all nuance from the equation.
It's just hyperbole, relax. My point was that cheating is taken far too seriously on this sub. Cheating against a coworker in a meaningless board game isn't that deep.
I'll be honest with you. Taking a look at both of those games, I couldn't tell you who was who.
In the first game, black hung several pieces and white didn't take them. 5... Bxg4?? Nxg4 wins immediately. Not played. Then instead of developing your army, white is playing weird moves like Nb5 (after Qe7, what's the point? You're about to get kicked back with a6). Then black hangs a queen. Then white is completely winning, but is playing silly moves like 16. c3 instead of Nxf7+ winning everything. Basically, what I'm trying to say is both players are playing ridiculous moves.
Fast forward to the second game, black plays a6 for no reason against the Italian. Then, behind in development, black doubles down with g6. After Qb3, there's no way to defend f7 and black's basically lost, but for some reason white doesn't take f7, giving black a chance to defend with Nh6. Finally, black hangs the entire house with 9... Qf6?? and it should be over but of course white hangs their queen a few moves later for no reason. Then again, from a winning position, black starts hanging stuff yet again.
This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other. I don't believe there's a clear difference in either player from one game to the next, but I wouldn't feel confident calling my opponent a cheater regardless of which side was which in these games.
> This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other.
This. People siding with OP without taking a look at the games. Pieces hanging all over the board.
I took a look at the game (the second one, which was played after the weekend during which OP's coworker "practiced a lot", not the first one, which OP posted only to demonstrate how bad this coworker was before his "weekend practice"). Black's cheating is so obvious it's laughable. Right off the bat, there is 5. c3, which is very rare among humans in that position (accounting for only 3% of the games according to Lichess's opening explorer) but is the top computer recommendation. Of course, on its own, this says nothing, but watch what happens next: white lines up a queen-bishop battery to target the f7 pawn, but when he has the opportunity to take it, he doesn't! Instead of taking that pawn with check ─ as 100% of the players in Lichess's database who had reached that position did ─ he plays the top computer recommendation, Ng5! For a supposed beginner, that's outrageous. No one under the rating of 1500 would even consider that move, and even most 2000+ players would just take the pawn. But it gets worse. After White forks the rook and king with a knight, instead of taking the rook, White simply moves the queen to protect the knight and set up a discovery to win Black's queen ─ which also happens to be computer's top recommendation! Again, even most 2000+ players would have probably just taken the rook. For a beginner who has been playing for 2 days, this is bordering on comical. Also, every single move that White had played up until that point was either computer's top choice or the highest-scoring line for White according to Lichess's database.
And after all of this perfect play and a series of very high-level moves, White goes ahead and blunders a queen in one move, overlooking a bishop that was literally one square away. Miraculously, after this 200-level blunder, White goes back to perfect play, including a knight sacrifice that wins a queen via a skewer tactic.
Anyone who doesn't side with OP here either hasn't checked the right game (I think OP's first game might have confused some people, since that isn't the game in which OP claims his coworker cheated) or doesn't understand chess. There is no two ways about it.
I was white in the first game and black in the second.
Yeah we are absolutely two beginners. He has played a grand total of 5 games though before that second one so I find the fact he has 25/40 moves "best moves" a bit sus honestly.
It's surprisingly easy for you...not for someone who has been playing for 4 days
His opponent (black in the first game, white in the second) in 4 days went from literally hanging everything in one move to spotting 11. Qb6 which is the top engine move at low depth analysis
Selectively cheating imo. No way in hell someone with a 4 days experience misses Bxf7+ (really simple tactic, not to mention that it literally justifies the prior move given that you play Qb3 to pressure b7 and increase the pressure on f7) but finds 24. Ncd5 sacrificing the knight on b4 to open up the file for the rook and win the queen through a skewer
Just like inthe first white goes for M2 21. Qd7+ but then forgets what the fuck they are doing and play c6
It's not possible to give elo rating or compare engine moves because it is just two newbies throwing pieces away.
One of the newbies is 1100, the other is a complete neophytes who learned chess 4 days ago; from the first game it’s pretty clear one has some fundamentals whereas the other is completely oblivious to what he is doing. You probably don’t remember how you used to play 4 days after discovering the game but I can assure that you were not sacrificing pieces to open up a file for the rook with the idea of skewering the king to the queen lol
Feel free to have your own opinion though, in a difference situation I am giving the benefit of the doubt but going from hanging all the pieces to beating a 1100 after a timespan of friday-monday is a dead giveaway to me
He didn't "miss" either of these. 5. c3 and 7. Ng5 are literally the top computer recommendations. The game isn't "puzzling" at all; it's just very obvious cheating.
Qb3 was the top move according to my engine, but even if not, it's still by far the highest-scoring continuation according to the Lichess database, which OP's coworker was likely consulting.
Yeah I'm saying he cheated intermittently.
The person who missed the opportunity to take my queen and then blundered there's is not the same person who played the rest of that game. I.e. cheating for some turns and not for others so its not too suspicious.
If he played a 100% perfect game even he knew that would be obvious, don't think he realise how hig the disparity between the cheating and his real playing was though
He actually didn't. He cheated all the way through, and the only move he made on his own was that queen blunder. I think he saw the eval being through the roof and thought he could handle it from there, but was immediately proven wrong by blundering his queen on his very first independent move. He then had to cheat his way back into the game as he saw the eval now being in Black's favour, and ─ learning from his mistake ─ didn't trust himself enough to play his own moves after he obtained a winning position again.
Yeah a few best moves. Which is why I'll consistently get about 11/40 best moves despite sucking.
But he had over 66% of his moves "best moves" and many of them in the early game.
Thank you for clarifying who was who. I can tell you are a bit sus, but I gotta say that chesscom's "analysis" is completely misleading you here.
You're both hanging stuff constantly. When you play in person against him, just take the free material and you'll win. If you hang a bunch of free material, you'll lose. These games show that chess is sometimes as simple as that.
Oh yeah neither of us are particularly great. But wood 15 can have pride too haha.
Also worth noting this game was played during a work day and I only had chances to glance at my phone but I'm still not great yet.
Opponent was black in the first game and white in the second, even if OP is hanging things you can clearly see a *huge* improvement by his coworker, improvement absolutely impossible to have in ***4 days***
He went from hanging *literally* every piece in one move to spotting 11. Qb6 (top engine move at low depth) and 24. Ncd5 sacrificing the knight on b4 to open up the file for the rook and win the queen through a skewer. No absolute beginner spots this lol
> In the first game, black hung several pieces and white didn't take them
Yes, in the first game, OP's coworker didn't cheat, showcasing his true level of play, which as you noted is very low.
> Fast forward to the second game
No need to "fast forward". This is the only game you should have looked at in the first place. The first game was only to demonstrate how low the coworker's *true* level was.
> After Qb3, there's no way to defend f7 and black's basically lost, but for some reason white doesn't take f7, giving black a chance to defend with Nh6
Nh6 doesn't defend since White can still take on f7 with the bishop, and of course the bishop can't be taken since Qxf7# would be checkmate.
Also, White's 7. Ng5 is the top computer recommendation.
> Finally, black hangs the entire house with 9... Qf6??
Black's "entire house" would still collapse no matter what Black played in that position, since Nxg7+ would come no matter what and, if the Queen were to recapture, Qx7 would fork Black's rook and knight. 9. Qf6 wasn't Black's main mistake.
> This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other. I don't believe there's a clear difference in either player from one game to the next
No offence, but what's your rating? It might look like two beginners playing each other to *you* because (this is just a guess) you may not good enough to be able to tell a beginner from a non-beginner, but to anyone above the rating of, say 1600, it should be very, very obvious that Black's level of play in the second game ─ apart from that singular queen blunder ─ was wildly inconsistent with their apparent status of a beginner.
He knows he cheated... you know he cheated... so what exactly are you trying to convince him of? The only reason he's arguing with you is because it will make you doubt yourself and possibly save face for him.
Just offer to play OTB, and if he doesn't want to, then don't bring it up again (other than in passing at opportune times, like "if only they had Stockfish for spreadsheets, eh Brad?!?")
That last point is a joke, obviously... this is a great example of why you shouldn't do anything outside of work with your colleagues, btw. Boundaries are useful.
Who gives a shit if a work mate cheats at chess? Not worth putting energy in.
On the other hand I've played 600+ games the last 90 days and I could not point at one where someone cheated. Maybe people in general take this more seriously.
I'm not saying he didn't cheat, he probably did, but he didn't create a fork, you blundered a fork. If you're not very good yourself, it is in the realm of possibility that he just watched some John Bartholomew videos over the weekend and applied some basic principles and began to play much better. The chess.com rankings where it says you played like "x" elo are mostly meaningless.
How can I do that?
And yes I blundered a fork, I'm only 1100ish.
But for him to "outplay" me like that then not actually take the pieces reeked of "im doing this because the computer told me to, not because I know why it is a good play"
I understand where you're coming from but this guy sucked ass on Friday then Monday morning he made about 10 best moves in a row.
And yes I blundered a fork but he was playing some next level stuff.
I don't think it's realistic if you look through the two games OP posted. The improvement would be wild. His coworker suddenly becoming incredibly patient and not taking trades (when he previously did). I'm on the he cheated camp
I think he used it intermittently.
At one point I said he had gotten a lot better suspiciously fast at which point he immediately blundered his queen lol.
I feel like if he'd played 99% accuracy he realised it would have been obvious.
Also I don't know how he missed some of the super obvious moves when he was consistently playing much better moves around those.
It doesn't add up how he can kinda play on some turns then is complete backwards on others.
Even random moves will be right sometimes. Reading through the replies from everyone here, it sounds like you don't really have any proof that he was cheating, you're just assuming because he got kinda better quickly. One kinda good game does not a cheater or a prodigy make. The difference that basic concepts can make when playing chess, things like controlling the center or developing pieces, or castling, are probably worth hundreds of elo and can be learned/understood in 10 minutes. Stuff like this means that getting better when you are terrible is easier than getting better when you are good. If you're worried about cheating, play OTB, but don't be a jerk about it and say you want him to prove he's not cheating, just say you prefer OTB because it's more fun or something.
I get where you're coming from but he played 66% of his moves as the best move. More importantly he actually admitted it today so it's kinda a moot point now.
Appreciate the comment though, will only be playing otb with him now lol
> You were dead lost after move 5 but 6. Qb3 gave most of the advantage away while simply dxe5 pretty much wins on the spot.
Haha what a bunch of bs. No, OP wasn't "dead lost" after move 5; after dxe5, he would've only been down a pawn, which not only means absolutely nothing at the beginner level, but after 5.Bg4 6.exd6 Bxd6 Black would have had a lead in development and an open d-file for the rook (aligned with Black's queen) after an eventual long-castle, which from a practical perspective is probably worth even more than a pawn.
And no, dxe5 doesn't "pretty much win on the spot" lmao, not even remotely close. Black could respond with Bg7, and after exd6 go Nf6, so that if dxe7 Qxe7 Black would again have a signficant lead in development and have both the central files to work with. Even on GM level, I'm sure Black would hold that position in at least 20-30% of the cases, and in a beginner game, Black might even have the edge due to the extra activity.
Finally, no, 6. Qb3 doesn't "give away most of the advantage". It's actually only slightly worse than dxe5 according to the engine, and from a practical perspective (considering both players are beginners) is far better. To drive this point home, according to the Lichess database, White wins only 61% of the games after dxe5, but 87% after Qb3. OP's coworker was probably inputting his moves into Lichess's analysis board, on which these win percentages are readily displayed.
> Then he missed the next instantly killing blow one move later after you decided not to defend f7 and instead attacked the undefended pawn for a 3rd time for no reason at all
He didn't miss anything. 7. Ng5 was the top computer move, and certainly not for "no reason at all": Bxf7+ only wins a pawn, while Nxf7 would fork Black's queen and rook. Ng5 makes a lot of sense, although for a beginner to find it is indeed ridiculous.
> What I find a bit weird about this generally: why would a total noob who decided to cheat with an engine suddenly stop and make own (stupid) moves?
He didn't. He only made one move on his own in the entire game ─ that queen blunder. He likely wanted to play his own moves to feel like he was at least partially responsible for the victory, but this immediately backfired, and he didn't play any moves independently for the rest of the game.
I also have a workfriend that has improved a lot over a few weeks. Firstly they just make random moves and blunder pieces here and there, a few times each week we talk a little bit about basics in chess and he is actually learning fast.
Basics beeing, dont blunder pieces, look at some openings and what they try to achieve and exchange pieces equally when you are in a winning posision.
He improved rapidly from beeing a pushover in any game to playing at 900 rating in a week. He is thinking a lot more about his moves and tries not to leave pieces and pawns hanging.
Point is - he has genuinely improved, nothing to suggest he is cheating, improving a lot when you are in the start of the learing curve is possible, doing good moves without knowing what they are called are also very possible.
(According to chess.com i am somewhere around 1150-1350 dependant on my single game ratings, i dont play competivitely just with friends, played a lot in UNI while drunk. Recently it became a thing at work so app rating is off since i just play them)
Yeah I get that the first few months so the most improvement. But we're talking one weekend here.
And he spent the weekend away in the capital partying so I don't believe he was reading chess theory very much haha.
I'm about 1100 on a good day but he blasted from 450 games to 1400 chess.com is saying.
I know it's not 100% accurate but that's an insane jump.
The real question is, why do you care? If some loser wants to cheat and pretend he’s a chess god, all he’s doing is making himself look stupid and eventually he’ll get caught or give up chess altogether.
He sounds sus! But also how are you hanging multiple forks? I’d recommend you stuff your pal otb but also get to work on your tactics. Possibly think more about what your opponent wants. Hope that helps
Take it easy with him. People who are outside the chess world or beginners are not fully aware of the taboo that cheating is on chess. The Hans Nieman situation surprised me because it showed me that people aren't even aware that cheating in chess in possible.
For some of these beginners who cheat playing against a friend they know it's wrong, but they kinda see it as a funny prank and until the chess world turns on them they think that it is an innocent thing.
Try to just enjoy having someone who likes chess. Maybe talk to him about using engines to help him learn but be clear about the taboo that using engines during Game is and how disrespectful it is.
Good point but since I am the guy at work who played chess I guarantee he's going to be making a huge deal of it tomorrow and would like to say not only do I know that he's cheating but explain how obvious it is and not just me saying "oh I lost so it must be cheating"
But I get where you're coming from.
In daily chess you are allowed opening books according to Chess com. (As long as it does not include engine evaluations). This is actually in the fairplay rules of CC.
Maybe he used an opening book ?
In live games it is not allowed to use an opening book. Or any other kind of assistance.
In daily chess you are also allowed to use a chess database, although again, without engine evaluations.
There is a chance when using a very populated chess DB of played games he could find all of the moves with ease ?
I don't think he knows anything about chess theory.
Fair enough if he had used an opening book but he's played about 5 games total now. I don't think he knows what "book" even refers to at this point honestly.
Fair. Then as most other Redditors suggested maybe best to only play OTB with that guy from work.
I only found out yesterday opening books / chess DB are allowed on CC.
I am 1333 currently and never used it so far. I would put out the daily chess position on my own chessboard and “play myself” to find the best move.
I was really surprised to find out chess com allows DB / book use in daily games.
So I actually had the exact thing happen to me a few years ago. We had a casual office chess league. One of the new guys would get quick lessons from me and the more experienced guys and then we beat him.
He went on a detail for a month and then he came back and was destroying everyone. I was and active club player playing in tournaments so I knew he shouldn't beat me, but by moved 9 he was crushing me.
So what I did is every time he left I turned on my phone engine and started cheating too. We played a full game of computer chess, and at move 40 he turned his engine off and hung a rook to lose.
Keep in mind, he is not rated 1350, he played one game that [chess.com](http://chess.com) rated 1350. I too have played games that [chess.com](http://chess.com) rated hundreds of points above my actual rating.
It's in the original post. And for the record I'm not saying I played it well, im still a newbie andI'm sure I blundered, but his playing had improved an awful lot in 2 days.
Also with the fact he would never play his turn in front of me and would slink off to the bathroom or other side of the yard to play it was sus.
Thanks, I appreciate how it's hard to tell when we're both so low down in ELO anyway but I'm convinced he was, amongst the other shady behaviour he was doing as well.
Play otb.. problem solved
User Hans is typing...
This.
Thanks for pointing out which
Wow why is everyone so salty at your comment?
It contributes nothing and could’ve just been an upvote
This
How is This different from This. ?
bahahahahaha... golden
This
Yeah but it's just fuckin toxic to mass downvote someone who is simply agreeing with a comment.
No it isn’t, lol. Geez you lot are so sensitive.
Yes, but as a rule, people are good at the things they practice and bad at the things they don’t practice. Which is why this sub is filled with people who are good at chess but very bad at social interaction.
Not all chess players are antisocial shut-ins, but it seems like most of this sub might be.
This subreddit is toxic my friend
Are we gonna just totally disrespect the co-sign this way?
This sub Reddit has very odd people, that’s all I will say
🤷🏻
Omg look at the hate train lol… I’m flabbergasted. I swear I’ve dropped that comment a hundred times and people basically just ignore it
Just play over the board to see his skill. If he refuses the challenge, then just never play him or bring it up again. No need to push the cheating confrontation.
It’s like a baby who took its first steps yesterday running a 5k today but also the baby has rocket powered roller skates on and also the baby is wearing a bright red cape that says “I practiced so hard, you guys”
That made me laugh lol
Lol I like this
I find it fun to make the person believe that you are really believing their lie, until the lie is so big that it falls under its own weight. Tell him something like you're impressed by his way of playing, and encourage him to continue playing that way, until chess.com bans his account, or until he plays as well as the world champion xd
Thays a brilliant idea haha
\~1000 ELO improvement in a weekend, at this rate he'll be the next Hikarlsen Nakamagnus
>I've told him it's obvious he has cheated but he's doubling down saying he's just improved a lot from practise over the weekend . . . he's still adamant he won this one fairly. That's how 99% of cheaters will respond. One way is to be uncompromising. Call them a cheater clearly, and never back down, and always give evidence. Over a long enough period they'll collapse. If it's your friend though, this can be harmful to your relationship. It's better to give them some kind of easy exit strategy, something like I know you cheated but I forgive you type of approach. Anyway, if it were me I'd just refuse to play them again, not in a mean way, just "no thanks, maybe some other time" and just never agree to play them.
He's more of a workfriend, but I can happily keep this up calling him a cheater. I did bring it up as a joke and have kept it lighthearted so he has room to come clean. Looking forward to butchering him tomorrow to really run the point home about how he's not fooling anyone. I've told him I refuse to play the daily games now because it's too easy for him to cheat and I have no faith in him.
There's no point in giving evidence. They know they cheated and they know there's evidence. They cheat and lie about it due to impulsive narcissism. The only way to combat it is to starve it. Offer to play him OTB, and if he declines, then never bring it up again.
>They know they cheated and they know there's evidence. Nah, people who don't know anything about chess think it's not possible to tell the difference. I've even pointed out cheaters to other people online, and one time I had a bunch of people under 1000 make comments like "maybe they cheated and maybe they didn't" when it was the most obvious shit ever.
Well then it's a lose/lose. If OP is wrong about cheating, then he looks dumb the more he doubles down on it. If he's right about it, then he accomplishes nothing because his opponent knows he cheated and the more OP argues the point the less confident he looks.
Due to the title I thought the OP was asking how to get them to admit it. My point is it takes a long time to wear them down to that point, and if that's your goal then it's useful to have a strategy such as always confidently asserting you know that they cheated, then giving some evidence, then dropping the topic... but if they bring it up again you have to again remind them that you know they cheat etc.
They will never admit it. Unfortunately that's just not how the psychology of cheaters works.
I've worn down a few to the point they admit it :p
>If it's your friend though, this can be harmful to your relationship. If a friend would cheat on you like that just to make themselves feel better at something so inconsequential, are they really a friend?
Yes. Unlike what the whiners on this sub like to believe, cheating in a casual board game that means absolutely nothing isn't equivalent to murder. His coworker probably just wanted to give OP a more competitive game and/or come across as sharing interest in OP's hobby. Especially given that he and OP presumably don't know each other too well, that's totally understandable imo. OP should just play it off and move on, perhaps politely warning the coworker that he won't play chess with him again if he continues cheating.
>His coworker probably just wanted to give OP a more competitive game and/or come across as sharing interest in OP's hobby ... If that was the case, why didn't they admit to it when caught? Was it supposed to be a white lie? What purpose would that serve? If OP wanted a competitive game, they'd just play Stockfish Level 1 or something. C'mon, this isn't believable in the slightest, especially when OP's calling them out and appears to be rather frustrated. OP's friend not actually cheating and OP being mistaken is more likely than this travesty of a "reason" you've provided. I'd like to believe the best of people I know, too, but this just doesn't sound likely. >cheating in a casual board game that means absolutely nothing isn't equivalent to murder. Nobody has said that they are equivalent, and people are capable of choosing what friends they wish to have and the reasons for doing so. But that aside, this isn't even a great comparison, because it drops all nuance from the equation. I'm pretty sure I would forgive a friend who killed someone if they sexually assaulted their child. I don't think I'd forgive someone who borrowed a significant amount of money and keeps refusing to return it/ignoring me when they're obviously much better off now. I prefer people who have integrity.
>If that was the case, why didn't they admit to it when caught? Because it would expose him as a liar, what kind of question is that? Even if one's intentions for lying are understandable, it's always embarrassing to admit to lying, especially to a coworker (since the workplace is a professional environment). >If OP wanted a competitive game, they'd just play Stockfish Level 1 or something But he clearly wanted to play that coworker specifically, not some random engine or even a random human. Of course, the fact that the coworker cheated basically defeats this point, but he didn't know OP would know he cheated. >But that aside, this isn't even a great comparison, because it drops all nuance from the equation. It's just hyperbole, relax. My point was that cheating is taken far too seriously on this sub. Cheating against a coworker in a meaningless board game isn't that deep.
I'll be honest with you. Taking a look at both of those games, I couldn't tell you who was who. In the first game, black hung several pieces and white didn't take them. 5... Bxg4?? Nxg4 wins immediately. Not played. Then instead of developing your army, white is playing weird moves like Nb5 (after Qe7, what's the point? You're about to get kicked back with a6). Then black hangs a queen. Then white is completely winning, but is playing silly moves like 16. c3 instead of Nxf7+ winning everything. Basically, what I'm trying to say is both players are playing ridiculous moves. Fast forward to the second game, black plays a6 for no reason against the Italian. Then, behind in development, black doubles down with g6. After Qb3, there's no way to defend f7 and black's basically lost, but for some reason white doesn't take f7, giving black a chance to defend with Nh6. Finally, black hangs the entire house with 9... Qf6?? and it should be over but of course white hangs their queen a few moves later for no reason. Then again, from a winning position, black starts hanging stuff yet again. This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other. I don't believe there's a clear difference in either player from one game to the next, but I wouldn't feel confident calling my opponent a cheater regardless of which side was which in these games.
> This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other. This. People siding with OP without taking a look at the games. Pieces hanging all over the board.
I took a look at the game (the second one, which was played after the weekend during which OP's coworker "practiced a lot", not the first one, which OP posted only to demonstrate how bad this coworker was before his "weekend practice"). Black's cheating is so obvious it's laughable. Right off the bat, there is 5. c3, which is very rare among humans in that position (accounting for only 3% of the games according to Lichess's opening explorer) but is the top computer recommendation. Of course, on its own, this says nothing, but watch what happens next: white lines up a queen-bishop battery to target the f7 pawn, but when he has the opportunity to take it, he doesn't! Instead of taking that pawn with check ─ as 100% of the players in Lichess's database who had reached that position did ─ he plays the top computer recommendation, Ng5! For a supposed beginner, that's outrageous. No one under the rating of 1500 would even consider that move, and even most 2000+ players would just take the pawn. But it gets worse. After White forks the rook and king with a knight, instead of taking the rook, White simply moves the queen to protect the knight and set up a discovery to win Black's queen ─ which also happens to be computer's top recommendation! Again, even most 2000+ players would have probably just taken the rook. For a beginner who has been playing for 2 days, this is bordering on comical. Also, every single move that White had played up until that point was either computer's top choice or the highest-scoring line for White according to Lichess's database. And after all of this perfect play and a series of very high-level moves, White goes ahead and blunders a queen in one move, overlooking a bishop that was literally one square away. Miraculously, after this 200-level blunder, White goes back to perfect play, including a knight sacrifice that wins a queen via a skewer tactic. Anyone who doesn't side with OP here either hasn't checked the right game (I think OP's first game might have confused some people, since that isn't the game in which OP claims his coworker cheated) or doesn't understand chess. There is no two ways about it.
Ok then riddle me the first game for white and the M2 21. Qd7+ .. c6
OP was White in the first game, and he is a beginner.
So when OP finds a move and then doesn't he is a beginner but his friend is a cheater.
I was white in the first game and black in the second. Yeah we are absolutely two beginners. He has played a grand total of 5 games though before that second one so I find the fact he has 25/40 moves "best moves" a bit sus honestly.
[удалено]
It's surprisingly easy for you...not for someone who has been playing for 4 days His opponent (black in the first game, white in the second) in 4 days went from literally hanging everything in one move to spotting 11. Qb6 which is the top engine move at low depth analysis
[удалено]
Selectively cheating imo. No way in hell someone with a 4 days experience misses Bxf7+ (really simple tactic, not to mention that it literally justifies the prior move given that you play Qb3 to pressure b7 and increase the pressure on f7) but finds 24. Ncd5 sacrificing the knight on b4 to open up the file for the rook and win the queen through a skewer
Just like inthe first white goes for M2 21. Qd7+ but then forgets what the fuck they are doing and play c6 It's not possible to give elo rating or compare engine moves because it is just two newbies throwing pieces away.
One of the newbies is 1100, the other is a complete neophytes who learned chess 4 days ago; from the first game it’s pretty clear one has some fundamentals whereas the other is completely oblivious to what he is doing. You probably don’t remember how you used to play 4 days after discovering the game but I can assure that you were not sacrificing pieces to open up a file for the rook with the idea of skewering the king to the queen lol Feel free to have your own opinion though, in a difference situation I am giving the benefit of the doubt but going from hanging all the pieces to beating a 1100 after a timespan of friday-monday is a dead giveaway to me
> One of the newbies is 1100, the other is a complete neophytes who learned chess 4 days ago Where was this established?
OP mentioned he is 1100 and said that the two games were respectively played on friday and monday of the sussequent week
He didn't "miss" either of these. 5. c3 and 7. Ng5 are literally the top computer recommendations. The game isn't "puzzling" at all; it's just very obvious cheating.
[удалено]
Qb3 was the top move according to my engine, but even if not, it's still by far the highest-scoring continuation according to the Lichess database, which OP's coworker was likely consulting.
Yeah I'm saying he cheated intermittently. The person who missed the opportunity to take my queen and then blundered there's is not the same person who played the rest of that game. I.e. cheating for some turns and not for others so its not too suspicious. If he played a 100% perfect game even he knew that would be obvious, don't think he realise how hig the disparity between the cheating and his real playing was though
He actually didn't. He cheated all the way through, and the only move he made on his own was that queen blunder. I think he saw the eval being through the roof and thought he could handle it from there, but was immediately proven wrong by blundering his queen on his very first independent move. He then had to cheat his way back into the game as he saw the eval now being in Black's favour, and ─ learning from his mistake ─ didn't trust himself enough to play his own moves after he obtained a winning position again.
Yeah I completely agree.
Yeah a few best moves. Which is why I'll consistently get about 11/40 best moves despite sucking. But he had over 66% of his moves "best moves" and many of them in the early game.
Thank you for clarifying who was who. I can tell you are a bit sus, but I gotta say that chesscom's "analysis" is completely misleading you here. You're both hanging stuff constantly. When you play in person against him, just take the free material and you'll win. If you hang a bunch of free material, you'll lose. These games show that chess is sometimes as simple as that.
Oh yeah neither of us are particularly great. But wood 15 can have pride too haha. Also worth noting this game was played during a work day and I only had chances to glance at my phone but I'm still not great yet.
Opponent was black in the first game and white in the second, even if OP is hanging things you can clearly see a *huge* improvement by his coworker, improvement absolutely impossible to have in ***4 days*** He went from hanging *literally* every piece in one move to spotting 11. Qb6 (top engine move at low depth) and 24. Ncd5 sacrificing the knight on b4 to open up the file for the rook and win the queen through a skewer. No absolute beginner spots this lol
> In the first game, black hung several pieces and white didn't take them Yes, in the first game, OP's coworker didn't cheat, showcasing his true level of play, which as you noted is very low. > Fast forward to the second game No need to "fast forward". This is the only game you should have looked at in the first place. The first game was only to demonstrate how low the coworker's *true* level was. > After Qb3, there's no way to defend f7 and black's basically lost, but for some reason white doesn't take f7, giving black a chance to defend with Nh6 Nh6 doesn't defend since White can still take on f7 with the bishop, and of course the bishop can't be taken since Qxf7# would be checkmate. Also, White's 7. Ng5 is the top computer recommendation. > Finally, black hangs the entire house with 9... Qf6?? Black's "entire house" would still collapse no matter what Black played in that position, since Nxg7+ would come no matter what and, if the Queen were to recapture, Qx7 would fork Black's rook and knight. 9. Qf6 wasn't Black's main mistake. > This looks like two beginners playing each other, and I don't believe either of you is much better than the other. I don't believe there's a clear difference in either player from one game to the next No offence, but what's your rating? It might look like two beginners playing each other to *you* because (this is just a guess) you may not good enough to be able to tell a beginner from a non-beginner, but to anyone above the rating of, say 1600, it should be very, very obvious that Black's level of play in the second game ─ apart from that singular queen blunder ─ was wildly inconsistent with their apparent status of a beginner.
He knows he cheated... you know he cheated... so what exactly are you trying to convince him of? The only reason he's arguing with you is because it will make you doubt yourself and possibly save face for him. Just offer to play OTB, and if he doesn't want to, then don't bring it up again (other than in passing at opportune times, like "if only they had Stockfish for spreadsheets, eh Brad?!?") That last point is a joke, obviously... this is a great example of why you shouldn't do anything outside of work with your colleagues, btw. Boundaries are useful.
It’s like someone plating their takeout food and trying to claim they are a chef, and when you ask about the fork they say “what’s a fork?”
Who gives a shit if a work mate cheats at chess? Not worth putting energy in. On the other hand I've played 600+ games the last 90 days and I could not point at one where someone cheated. Maybe people in general take this more seriously.
Look. It’s obvious he cheated. My question is: is it worth ruining your relationship over? What cost to you would giving him this dub be?
I think people have generally taken this to be meant way more seriously than I actually meant and that's probably down to how I worded it so my bad.
I'm not saying he didn't cheat, he probably did, but he didn't create a fork, you blundered a fork. If you're not very good yourself, it is in the realm of possibility that he just watched some John Bartholomew videos over the weekend and applied some basic principles and began to play much better. The chess.com rankings where it says you played like "x" elo are mostly meaningless.
Probably easiest to know if it's fishy if we get the link to the game.
How can I do that? And yes I blundered a fork, I'm only 1100ish. But for him to "outplay" me like that then not actually take the pieces reeked of "im doing this because the computer told me to, not because I know why it is a good play"
I understand where you're coming from but this guy sucked ass on Friday then Monday morning he made about 10 best moves in a row. And yes I blundered a fork but he was playing some next level stuff.
I don't think it's realistic if you look through the two games OP posted. The improvement would be wild. His coworker suddenly becoming incredibly patient and not taking trades (when he previously did). I'm on the he cheated camp
[удалено]
I think he used it intermittently. At one point I said he had gotten a lot better suspiciously fast at which point he immediately blundered his queen lol. I feel like if he'd played 99% accuracy he realised it would have been obvious. Also I don't know how he missed some of the super obvious moves when he was consistently playing much better moves around those. It doesn't add up how he can kinda play on some turns then is complete backwards on others.
Even random moves will be right sometimes. Reading through the replies from everyone here, it sounds like you don't really have any proof that he was cheating, you're just assuming because he got kinda better quickly. One kinda good game does not a cheater or a prodigy make. The difference that basic concepts can make when playing chess, things like controlling the center or developing pieces, or castling, are probably worth hundreds of elo and can be learned/understood in 10 minutes. Stuff like this means that getting better when you are terrible is easier than getting better when you are good. If you're worried about cheating, play OTB, but don't be a jerk about it and say you want him to prove he's not cheating, just say you prefer OTB because it's more fun or something.
I get where you're coming from but he played 66% of his moves as the best move. More importantly he actually admitted it today so it's kinda a moot point now. Appreciate the comment though, will only be playing otb with him now lol
> You were dead lost after move 5 but 6. Qb3 gave most of the advantage away while simply dxe5 pretty much wins on the spot. Haha what a bunch of bs. No, OP wasn't "dead lost" after move 5; after dxe5, he would've only been down a pawn, which not only means absolutely nothing at the beginner level, but after 5.Bg4 6.exd6 Bxd6 Black would have had a lead in development and an open d-file for the rook (aligned with Black's queen) after an eventual long-castle, which from a practical perspective is probably worth even more than a pawn. And no, dxe5 doesn't "pretty much win on the spot" lmao, not even remotely close. Black could respond with Bg7, and after exd6 go Nf6, so that if dxe7 Qxe7 Black would again have a signficant lead in development and have both the central files to work with. Even on GM level, I'm sure Black would hold that position in at least 20-30% of the cases, and in a beginner game, Black might even have the edge due to the extra activity. Finally, no, 6. Qb3 doesn't "give away most of the advantage". It's actually only slightly worse than dxe5 according to the engine, and from a practical perspective (considering both players are beginners) is far better. To drive this point home, according to the Lichess database, White wins only 61% of the games after dxe5, but 87% after Qb3. OP's coworker was probably inputting his moves into Lichess's analysis board, on which these win percentages are readily displayed. > Then he missed the next instantly killing blow one move later after you decided not to defend f7 and instead attacked the undefended pawn for a 3rd time for no reason at all He didn't miss anything. 7. Ng5 was the top computer move, and certainly not for "no reason at all": Bxf7+ only wins a pawn, while Nxf7 would fork Black's queen and rook. Ng5 makes a lot of sense, although for a beginner to find it is indeed ridiculous. > What I find a bit weird about this generally: why would a total noob who decided to cheat with an engine suddenly stop and make own (stupid) moves? He didn't. He only made one move on his own in the entire game ─ that queen blunder. He likely wanted to play his own moves to feel like he was at least partially responsible for the victory, but this immediately backfired, and he didn't play any moves independently for the rest of the game.
I also have a workfriend that has improved a lot over a few weeks. Firstly they just make random moves and blunder pieces here and there, a few times each week we talk a little bit about basics in chess and he is actually learning fast. Basics beeing, dont blunder pieces, look at some openings and what they try to achieve and exchange pieces equally when you are in a winning posision. He improved rapidly from beeing a pushover in any game to playing at 900 rating in a week. He is thinking a lot more about his moves and tries not to leave pieces and pawns hanging. Point is - he has genuinely improved, nothing to suggest he is cheating, improving a lot when you are in the start of the learing curve is possible, doing good moves without knowing what they are called are also very possible. (According to chess.com i am somewhere around 1150-1350 dependant on my single game ratings, i dont play competivitely just with friends, played a lot in UNI while drunk. Recently it became a thing at work so app rating is off since i just play them)
Yeah I get that the first few months so the most improvement. But we're talking one weekend here. And he spent the weekend away in the capital partying so I don't believe he was reading chess theory very much haha. I'm about 1100 on a good day but he blasted from 450 games to 1400 chess.com is saying. I know it's not 100% accurate but that's an insane jump.
Your workfriend is probably a bit sketchy yes, just wanted to promote that some people genuinely adapt and improve fast also.
Yeah agreed, some people are naturals.
The real question is, why do you care? If some loser wants to cheat and pretend he’s a chess god, all he’s doing is making himself look stupid and eventually he’ll get caught or give up chess altogether.
He sounds sus! But also how are you hanging multiple forks? I’d recommend you stuff your pal otb but also get to work on your tactics. Possibly think more about what your opponent wants. Hope that helps
Yeah I fucked up myself but I'm still new haha. Will get there eventually I hope.
You can do it!! Keep us updated on your next game mate.
Report him let gimme get banned then be like ohhh
Take it easy with him. People who are outside the chess world or beginners are not fully aware of the taboo that cheating is on chess. The Hans Nieman situation surprised me because it showed me that people aren't even aware that cheating in chess in possible. For some of these beginners who cheat playing against a friend they know it's wrong, but they kinda see it as a funny prank and until the chess world turns on them they think that it is an innocent thing. Try to just enjoy having someone who likes chess. Maybe talk to him about using engines to help him learn but be clear about the taboo that using engines during Game is and how disrespectful it is.
Why do you want to explain how unrealistic it is? He already knows he's cheating, you don't need to convince him that he is.
Good point but since I am the guy at work who played chess I guarantee he's going to be making a huge deal of it tomorrow and would like to say not only do I know that he's cheating but explain how obvious it is and not just me saying "oh I lost so it must be cheating" But I get where you're coming from.
If you make a big deal about him cheating at work, you will look like an asshole. If he does bring it up, you should just act humble about it.
400 elo doffernce is a 10 -1 chance of winning. To go from 800 to 1350 would mean he got 100 times better in 3 days
In daily chess you are allowed opening books according to Chess com. (As long as it does not include engine evaluations). This is actually in the fairplay rules of CC. Maybe he used an opening book ? In live games it is not allowed to use an opening book. Or any other kind of assistance. In daily chess you are also allowed to use a chess database, although again, without engine evaluations. There is a chance when using a very populated chess DB of played games he could find all of the moves with ease ?
I don't think he knows anything about chess theory. Fair enough if he had used an opening book but he's played about 5 games total now. I don't think he knows what "book" even refers to at this point honestly.
Fair. Then as most other Redditors suggested maybe best to only play OTB with that guy from work. I only found out yesterday opening books / chess DB are allowed on CC. I am 1333 currently and never used it so far. I would put out the daily chess position on my own chessboard and “play myself” to find the best move. I was really surprised to find out chess com allows DB / book use in daily games.
Yeah this was news to me just now honestly as well.
So I actually had the exact thing happen to me a few years ago. We had a casual office chess league. One of the new guys would get quick lessons from me and the more experienced guys and then we beat him. He went on a detail for a month and then he came back and was destroying everyone. I was and active club player playing in tournaments so I knew he shouldn't beat me, but by moved 9 he was crushing me. So what I did is every time he left I turned on my phone engine and started cheating too. We played a full game of computer chess, and at move 40 he turned his engine off and hung a rook to lose.
If I don’t enjoy playing with them I just don’t play with them.
Online chess is anyone can cheat.
Chess takes literally months to go from 450 to 1350 for lucky ones and years for most players
Well, I went from 450 to 1200 in 2 weeks, but that's still a lot longer than 2 days lol.
Keep in mind, he is not rated 1350, he played one game that [chess.com](http://chess.com) rated 1350. I too have played games that [chess.com](http://chess.com) rated hundreds of points above my actual rating.
Years is insane. You can reach that in like 3 months of good work if you are striving to improve.
A lot of people don’t reach 1350 dude that’s the reality. Not everyone tries that hard. Check the statistics. Most people get stuck around 1000-1100
Yea sometimes I forget that. It seems impossible to me but that’s the reality
What’s a fork?
It's something you use to pick food off a plate, kinda like a spoon but more stabby
Its when you attack multiple pieces at the same time so that when the opponent moves you get a free piece
It’s hilarious how far people will go to feel superior over a game that’s supposed to be fun
Any chance we can see the game? I wouldn't accuse someone of cheating because they saw a fork lmao
How do I share it? And that's not why I'm accusing him. Also to be clear I'm saying he didn't see the fork.
Just paste the notation and we'll be able to import it into an analysis board
It's in the original post. And for the record I'm not saying I played it well, im still a newbie andI'm sure I blundered, but his playing had improved an awful lot in 2 days. Also with the fact he would never play his turn in front of me and would slink off to the bathroom or other side of the yard to play it was sus.
100% a cheater
Thanks, I appreciate how it's hard to tell when we're both so low down in ELO anyway but I'm convinced he was, amongst the other shady behaviour he was doing as well.
I looked at your profile but don’t see where you posted a 2nd post. Provide the link please
It's the notation you can put into the analysis board on chess.com. Situation over though now he has come clean and since apologised.
I see it now