What do you think - is this game for real?

[Joey Stewart]

Once I saw Nf8 it was case closed for me - even most masters wouldnt play a move like that in the endgame with very little time on the clock.

Opening was a bit ropey though, it felt like he didnt turn the engine on until the midgame (or you were using a bunch of engine built theory yourself that was able to neutralise his play) but yeah I see games like this more and more often nowadays and it just shows how ineffective anti cheating measures are when someone games the system in that way.

P.S. Never say gg or give anyone any sort of respect on the internet - treat them all as the dirty cheating scum they most likely are !

[JustinHorton]

P.S. Never say gg or give anyone any sort of respect on the internet - treat them all as the dirty cheating scum they most likely are !

Luvly

[Jonathan Rogers]

Who knows. Perhaps receiving a genuine "well played" forces them to confront what they are doing and to reflect either how easy it is to be a better person or how nice it would be to have earned the praise. Maybe the following day they look up a book on ethics or have a epiphany and in a month's time join the church, or go out to give food to the homeless.

Not saying it's likely, but generally the site probably does well to offer for the chat WP and GG rather than Joey's DCS!

[Geoff Chandler]

Interesting post.

I agree with Mathew. Here at blitz you just play 34.Kf3....

2r1k3/p1nRb2N/4p1pP/4N3/2P2p2/8/4KPP1/8 w - - 0 34

...and wait for Bf8 so you can play Nf6 mate. (what does Black do.)

But there again the idea of vacating h7 so the pawn can advance is attractive and the only safe square is 34. Nf8.

That pawn has been on h6 since move 12 and White's play for the past half dozen moves has been geared around that pawn.
He will have been hot-hunting for a pawn promo combination. If you spot the Nf8 idea you will go a bit deeper to see if it works.

Sitting here as a cold spectator 34.Kf3 just leaps out you. But hot and playing the game with eyes as big as organ stops...34.Nf8 is plausible.

( Rg1 was an obvious mouse slip - did enough of those to recognise one.)

[NickFaulks]

P.S. Never say gg or give anyone any sort of respect on the internet - treat them all as the dirty cheating scum they most likely are !

Luvly

I think this illustrates why OTB and internet players are different breeds, and attempts to mix them are doomed to fail.

[Alan Walton]

There is an argument that if black runs the a pawn you may have to play Nf8 anyway

[Martin Crichton]

Here is my experience with Lichess

I have been using the Lichess platform regularly now been a member since March 26th...I just checked and in that time I have played 1621 games...I use my real name...my username is MartinCrichton (current rating 2064) and I only play blitz (5 minute chess) chess to eradicate the possibility of playing cheaters however it still apparently happens as I have received maybe 8 notifications from Lichess that quote "You have lost to a cheater you have been credited with 11 rating points" (normally 6 rating points)...11 was the highest from memory which would imply the rating differential was in excess of 200 points.
Still fairly low % of cheating with respect to the number of games that I played...

8 games from 1621 would be approx 0.5% or one chess player in every 200 using Lichess is a cheating scumbag.

Of course that % must be exponentially higher at slower time limits.

[MJMcCready]

It looks like he was using a computer but not for all the moves. Rg1 is poor but much of the play seems computer-like to me.

[Richard Bates]

I don’t think that Nf8 in isolation particularly stands out. It simply shows a creative flair/streak. When you’re playing online casual chess there is always an attraction in seeking out the artistic in preference to the mundane. And also the seeking out of shortcuts to victory. Especially when you don’t really care about the result and are just playing for fun and/or to pass the time. Something like Nf8 is probably the first thing I’d look at.

Far more “impressive”/suspicious is the sequence of moves from around move 15 onwards. Not taking the f pawn, Qc3, b3?, Bc4. No rush to get the King to safety. Nxc5 rather than Rxd8 is very unnatural I think. Even I think Ke2 rather than Kc2 is surprising.

[DavidWalker]

Agreed 15. Qc3 is a strange move, but it doesn't appear to be a computer move. Moves like 0-0, 0-0-0, Qxf4 and Kf1(!) all seem more popular with various engines. If anything, Qc3 looks like a human move targeting a pawn and half-pinning the Nf6. I thought b3 was strange as well, but maybe plausible for a lower-rated human just wanting to keep their pieces defended. 23. Nxc5 doesn't look like an automatic move, but white did spend 20 seconds on it, so maybe they saw some merit in being able to hit the bishop on f6 with Ne4 or Nd7. 27.Ke2 does look a little strange, but maybe white just wanted to avoid worrying about N-a6-b4+.

In the opening, 7.a3 is interesting: again computers are not that keen, but to the human eye it prepares c4 without allowing Bb4+. 29. Nf6+ is also interesting in that it took white 0 seconds, so it was either a pre-move or white was ready to play it immediately which would be strange for a computer users since 28... Ne8 and 28... Be7 are both better than ...Rxb3 as played. I don't think white was using computer assistance.

Looking at some of white's other games, they are certainly not using a computer in some games - eg one where in successive moves they blunder a pawn, then a piece (overlooked by their opponent) then a piece again. Also, in the 2 games against 2200+ rated opponents, they lose one game, but do beat a 2300+ player after suffering in a worse R+P endgame before their opponent throws the game away.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Hi David,

I don't know how you knew all this (!), but you make very useful observations. Outside of the game, I certainly agree that there is no overall suspicion (though I just looked at the very normal rating profile) and that for me is the best reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

(This thread has become an interesting way of seeing how differently people view the same game).

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know how you knew all this (!), but you make very useful observations.

If he knows your user id and the server on which you were playing, I would think the game in question and thus the handle of the opponent can be easily enough identified.

[Brian Towers]

If an error-strewn game like that disturbs you so much, Jonathan, then why do you play online?
And if you are going to play online why choose what is pretty much the optimum cheat's time control?

If you want to see some really dodgy online play then check out Simon William's YouTube channel for games played at a similar time control. He must get about 30% cheaters and the moves and timing are far more blatant than anything here. His excuse is that the games go up on his YouTube channel and provide entertainment and education to his viewers and a (very small) income for him. I think he has got so fed up with the cheaters that now he tries to line up known opponents.

[JustinHorton]

If an error-strewn game like that disturbs you so much, Jonathan, then why do you play online?

I mean what with all the normal OTB events that are available at the moment

[Jonathan Rogers]

Indeed. I hadn't played online at all before this crisis.

I like to think I was curious rather than "disturbed" (!) by my experience, and suspicious games are clearly topical on this forum.

I suppose you are right about 10 + 5 being a good time control for cheats, I hadn't really thought about that. My blitz performances had just dropped so I thought I would try something a bit slower (and it may be that I haven't played a cheat at this time limit at all).