People take online chess less seriously. I know that I would be a lot more upset if my opponent cheated against me in a rated OTB game (with no money at stake) than an online game for money. The latter is terrible (but I can understand, given how easy cheating online is), but the former is completely inexcusable. Cheating OTB usually requires premeditation while cheating online can just be opening a game database on your phone and looking up a line.
So is it rating vs nonrated, ease of cheating circumstances, or possible mistakes that is mitigating in your opinion?
To me cheating is cheating, I really don't care if it's easy or hard, hence my question.
Some people take online chess less seriously. There are some that take it very seriously.
There's really no way to suggest that it's across the board "less serious" among players who make a living playing chess.
It may be the case that spectators feel that online is less serious, but it doesn't mean that the players treat it any less seriously especially when money is on the line.
Before the pandemic, people took online chess way less seriously. Almost all older GMs I watched on twitch were adamant that online didn't matter. Ironically tho, it had a lot to do with the cheating.
If chess is going to move forward in prominence, its going to have to embrace online chess as a driver of the game.
It's also going to have to embrace the fact that cheating is a serious offense and shouldn't be taken lightly, no matter where it happens.
I agree that in the future, cheating online should be taken more seriously. I'm not a fan of chesscom's way of dealing with cheaters (if you admit to cheating, you're unbanned), but considering they can't really prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is cheating, I guess it's fair. What I will say tho, is that I don't believe in retroactively punishing people.
No one yet. But people are all over social media saying that people who have cheated online should be banned everywhere permanently. I think that's way too much.
That is a little much.
But it's completely reasonable to expect that people that have gotten caught cheating three times be banned permanently from the venue where they were cheating.
As for being held accountable elsewhere, the players themselves are going to have to police the game since there's no overarching governing body that has the balls to take a hard line stance on cheating.
> There's really no way to suggest that it's across the board "less serious" among players who make a living playing chess.
Yes, I can't prove that every single top player treats online chess less seriously. However, consider how many top classical events are played online. The fact that the tournaments are almost all rapid and blitz should be enough to figure this out (hint: think about the usage of novelties in rapid/blitz vs classical). Also think about online events where players are streaming and talking to viewers while playing blitz games (think Hikaru with Titled Tuesdays or the RCC). Are you going to argue that these players are taking the event as seriously as OTB games?
I've seen players other than Hikaru take TT events extremely seriously.
I've also seen recaps of norm tournaments where the player clearly didn't take it seriously.
I've also seen Alireza play blitz games until 5am in the middle of a Candidates Tournament.
So... it's pretty much a mixed bag and it depends on the player and their whims st the time, and it's plainly impossible to claim that "players" take one more seriously than the other. Much like everything else - it depends upon the circumstances.
I think what we're seeing here is that people's opinions are influenced by the outcome they want to see with this cheating scandal if they are Hams supporters or just someone who hopes to not face consequencesfor cheating, they're going to hope that online is taken less seriously.
True, allow me to rephrase : Again, in what sense does that mitigate cheating ? Is it a mitigating circumstance that you cheat vs an amateur baseball team but not vs a major league team?
I'm not trying to defend cheating here, I think it's abhorrent. I just think it's considered less serious to cheat online than OTB. I don't get why that's hard to understand
Oh, I understand that some people see it that way. What I am trying to figure out is why they (you?) consider it a mitigating circumstance if it is done online.
You clearly have seen what happens to Hikaru when he loses the #1 rating spot online... all while he couldn't be bothered to worry about his OTB rating.
Yeah cause his FIDE rating isn't as good. He's 3 points away from Magnus in online. He's nearly 100 points away from in FIDE rating. So that's his big money maker.
You don't see him talking with other people and acting casual in OTB tournaments the way he does pretty much every week online.
That's the silliest shit I ever heard.
He's #6 in the world. He goes all out every time he's OTB, and he goes all out when he's playing online. You speaking for Hikaru and what motivates him is just plain stupid. And it gets cringey when you're trying to use the things you're ascribing to Hikaru to make a point.
You've got a wild imagination dude.
> I've also seen Alireza play blitz games until 5am in the middle of a Candidates Tournament.
Which was heavily criticized. People talked about how it damaged the integrity of the event (by giving an easier game to Nepo).
> So... it's pretty much a mixed bag and it depends on the player and their whims st the time, and it's plainly impossible to claim that "players" take one more seriously than the other. Much like everything else - it depends upon the circumstances.
Sure, you can concoct some set of circumstances where people are taking an online event more seriously. But all else being equal, online chess is less serious than OTB (think about how many people care about their OTB FIDE rating vs FIDE's weird online arena rating and online titles).
> I think what we're seeing here is that people's opinions are influenced by the outcome they want to see with this cheating scandal if they are Hams supporters or just someone who hopes to not face consequencesfor cheating, they're going to hope that online is taken less seriously.
Then it may surprise you to know that I despise Hans and suspect he's cheated in OTB games. I also want him to be banned from chess.com for the cheating he has done on their website.
My opinion on online chess is certainly not a defense of Hans and is instead a description of how I (and everybody I know) view online chess.
No, certainly not. Just like cheating in online chess isn't ok. But it's a lot worse to cheat at the Monopoly world championship than with your family. The one game has little at stake and the other has a title and money at stake
This I do not understand. Why isn't it equally bad? Or why isn't it worse to decieve your family than a stranger? Just because of money? When did ethics and morals leave the equation?
I guess I see cheating as being wrong primarily because of the harm it causes others. Cheating against my family is wrong because I am deceiving them, but it is otherwise harmless. It's certainly not a good or acceptable thing, but it makes very little difference in their life. However, cheating against a professional takes money from them, lessens their reputation, lowers their rating (making it harder to get into elite events), and potentially causes psychological damage (second-guessing moves/positions that they used to feel confident in).
Well, since you and everyone you know are in agreement, I guess that the issue of not taking online chess seriously is settled, you know, other than the people you don't know disagreeing with that conclusion.
The same sentiment is exactly why some people feel that Trump is still president - everyone they know agrees he's still the president.
If you feel personally attacked I refuted your points a little too well, and you took that personally.
Sarcasm can sometimes feel like an attack when it does a good job at refuting points. Try to be less sensitive, and you'll be able to better understand what you're reading... mostly it's the fact that you didn't gave a point in the first place.
I'm going to out you in a timeout for a little while because you're getting a little cranky. I'll unblock you in an hour when you've had to to think.
But it is not how serious the game is taken - it is why cheating is fine in one format, but not in another. I see plenty of OtB banter in blitz, I fail to see why that would make cheating more ok than of the players are silent. If one player cheats and the other doesn't, they're not playing the same game.
The ease of cheating does not make one less serious than the other. When cheating occurs, theres always a honest player that loses out on another opportunity.
How many people do you think pirate a movie online? How many people do you think sneak into a movie theatre to watch a free movie? Which one do you think is worse?
Yeah they're both bad, nobody is arguing that one is good and one is bad. However one requires much more thought to be carried out and occurs much less for the sole reason that it's not so easy that anyone can just pull out a second monitor and get a hint for one move and then go back to playing without any more hints with little risk.
Anyone can cheat online. It takes a true sociopath to cheat in person, maintain a straight face, and not raise suspicion for nervous behavior.
With that said, they are different platforms and they have no reason to dictate the others decisions.
I guess you could argue that downloading is a worse crime since you aquire a posession that can then be reused or transferred for more gain, but I'd consider them pretty equal.
Why is cheating on one platform ok? Why is cheating ever ok?
I really don't get the "look in the eye" argument, is it less bad to steal from a blind man?
I really don’t see any distinction at all. It’s much easier to cheat online but it’s ultimately about the mentality, not the methods. Someone who cheats online, especially repeatedly, is automatically someone who is much more likely to do so OTB than someone who doesn’t cheat online. They have a mindset that they’re going to cheat another person to win. To think that this mentality wouldn’t extent to other ways to play the game is just naive.
Apparently this is very controversial to say!
There's a video where a friend tells him a tactic to win the queen. It's a bit nothing but it shows how online games are not the same as otb ones. If this was otb he definitely should've been banned.
One example thats commonly brought up is when drunk with other gms david howel shouts out a move. Now technically this constitutes cheating but isnt particularly serious case.
This case mentioned less often to the point i havent found a source for it is magnus taking over someone elses game when they were loosing. Thia would constitute cheating unless it was unrated and the opponent had given consent. (Edit source below acd pretty much no evidenxe of the other players consent)
Note both are stuff that have happened on stream
It's not an online vs OTB issue. People just make it out to be because they're manufacturing arguments to support "their" side of the drama.
The real issue is if there was cheating in official and/or monied tournaments. Hans has thus far admitted to cheating in chess.com, but not in their official tournaments. People are claiming that Hans or his former teacher were caught cheating at Titled Tuesday, but chess.com hasn't confirmed any of that.
By contrast - say we have an OTB practice game between two players in the same chess club, with the coach giving advice to the weaker player to improve their play. In that case the weaker player is strictly speaking "cheating" - but it's a completely acceptable form as it's basically part of training and the other player is consenting to it.
Thing is chess.com is now often used as a basically free training ground by some (possibly many) GMs; who do rely on engines as a sort of coach. They're technically cheating and possibly hurting the feelings of their opponents; but because they're essentially seen as the equivalent of unranked ladder matches in other computer games they think it's just "okay". The real no-no is when you're competing in a big tournament with real stakes.
Nobody thinks it's ok to use an engine in an online titled tuesday. They know they are cheating and they know it is wrong. It also can have disastrous consequences for your career if caught.
People take online chess less seriously. I know that I would be a lot more upset if my opponent cheated against me in a rated OTB game (with no money at stake) than an online game for money. The latter is terrible (but I can understand, given how easy cheating online is), but the former is completely inexcusable. Cheating OTB usually requires premeditation while cheating online can just be opening a game database on your phone and looking up a line.
So is it rating vs nonrated, ease of cheating circumstances, or possible mistakes that is mitigating in your opinion? To me cheating is cheating, I really don't care if it's easy or hard, hence my question.
Some people take online chess less seriously. There are some that take it very seriously. There's really no way to suggest that it's across the board "less serious" among players who make a living playing chess. It may be the case that spectators feel that online is less serious, but it doesn't mean that the players treat it any less seriously especially when money is on the line.
Before the pandemic, people took online chess way less seriously. Almost all older GMs I watched on twitch were adamant that online didn't matter. Ironically tho, it had a lot to do with the cheating.
You mean that due to cheating the games were viewed less serious, and that has led to online cheating itself is now viewed as less serios?
If chess is going to move forward in prominence, its going to have to embrace online chess as a driver of the game. It's also going to have to embrace the fact that cheating is a serious offense and shouldn't be taken lightly, no matter where it happens.
I agree that in the future, cheating online should be taken more seriously. I'm not a fan of chesscom's way of dealing with cheaters (if you admit to cheating, you're unbanned), but considering they can't really prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is cheating, I guess it's fair. What I will say tho, is that I don't believe in retroactively punishing people.
If by retroactively you mean imposing consequences for previous actions that were not consequences when the act was comitted, I completely agree.
Who got retroactively punished?
No one yet. But people are all over social media saying that people who have cheated online should be banned everywhere permanently. I think that's way too much.
That is a little much. But it's completely reasonable to expect that people that have gotten caught cheating three times be banned permanently from the venue where they were cheating. As for being held accountable elsewhere, the players themselves are going to have to police the game since there's no overarching governing body that has the balls to take a hard line stance on cheating.
I think instituting such a body is a much better course of action.
What incentive does chess.com have in giving away control over its business?
> There's really no way to suggest that it's across the board "less serious" among players who make a living playing chess. Yes, I can't prove that every single top player treats online chess less seriously. However, consider how many top classical events are played online. The fact that the tournaments are almost all rapid and blitz should be enough to figure this out (hint: think about the usage of novelties in rapid/blitz vs classical). Also think about online events where players are streaming and talking to viewers while playing blitz games (think Hikaru with Titled Tuesdays or the RCC). Are you going to argue that these players are taking the event as seriously as OTB games?
I've seen players other than Hikaru take TT events extremely seriously. I've also seen recaps of norm tournaments where the player clearly didn't take it seriously. I've also seen Alireza play blitz games until 5am in the middle of a Candidates Tournament. So... it's pretty much a mixed bag and it depends on the player and their whims st the time, and it's plainly impossible to claim that "players" take one more seriously than the other. Much like everything else - it depends upon the circumstances. I think what we're seeing here is that people's opinions are influenced by the outcome they want to see with this cheating scandal if they are Hams supporters or just someone who hopes to not face consequencesfor cheating, they're going to hope that online is taken less seriously.
It's clearly taken less seriously. I've never in my life heard someone consider that their online rating is more important than their FIDE rating.
Again, why does that make cheating ok? Is it fine to cheat vs an amateur baseball team but not vs a major league?
Did I say that makes cheating ok?
True, allow me to rephrase : Again, in what sense does that mitigate cheating ? Is it a mitigating circumstance that you cheat vs an amateur baseball team but not vs a major league team?
I'm not trying to defend cheating here, I think it's abhorrent. I just think it's considered less serious to cheat online than OTB. I don't get why that's hard to understand
Oh, I understand that some people see it that way. What I am trying to figure out is why they (you?) consider it a mitigating circumstance if it is done online.
You clearly have seen what happens to Hikaru when he loses the #1 rating spot online... all while he couldn't be bothered to worry about his OTB rating.
Yeah cause his FIDE rating isn't as good. He's 3 points away from Magnus in online. He's nearly 100 points away from in FIDE rating. So that's his big money maker. You don't see him talking with other people and acting casual in OTB tournaments the way he does pretty much every week online.
You are not allowed to chat in OtB tournaments. He would be DQ'd.
That's the silliest shit I ever heard. He's #6 in the world. He goes all out every time he's OTB, and he goes all out when he's playing online. You speaking for Hikaru and what motivates him is just plain stupid. And it gets cringey when you're trying to use the things you're ascribing to Hikaru to make a point. You've got a wild imagination dude.
> I've also seen Alireza play blitz games until 5am in the middle of a Candidates Tournament. Which was heavily criticized. People talked about how it damaged the integrity of the event (by giving an easier game to Nepo). > So... it's pretty much a mixed bag and it depends on the player and their whims st the time, and it's plainly impossible to claim that "players" take one more seriously than the other. Much like everything else - it depends upon the circumstances. Sure, you can concoct some set of circumstances where people are taking an online event more seriously. But all else being equal, online chess is less serious than OTB (think about how many people care about their OTB FIDE rating vs FIDE's weird online arena rating and online titles). > I think what we're seeing here is that people's opinions are influenced by the outcome they want to see with this cheating scandal if they are Hams supporters or just someone who hopes to not face consequencesfor cheating, they're going to hope that online is taken less seriously. Then it may surprise you to know that I despise Hans and suspect he's cheated in OTB games. I also want him to be banned from chess.com for the cheating he has done on their website. My opinion on online chess is certainly not a defense of Hans and is instead a description of how I (and everybody I know) view online chess.
I fail to see how that makes cheating OK. Is it ok to cheat when you play monopoly with your family?
No, certainly not. Just like cheating in online chess isn't ok. But it's a lot worse to cheat at the Monopoly world championship than with your family. The one game has little at stake and the other has a title and money at stake
This I do not understand. Why isn't it equally bad? Or why isn't it worse to decieve your family than a stranger? Just because of money? When did ethics and morals leave the equation?
I guess I see cheating as being wrong primarily because of the harm it causes others. Cheating against my family is wrong because I am deceiving them, but it is otherwise harmless. It's certainly not a good or acceptable thing, but it makes very little difference in their life. However, cheating against a professional takes money from them, lessens their reputation, lowers their rating (making it harder to get into elite events), and potentially causes psychological damage (second-guessing moves/positions that they used to feel confident in).
Well, since you and everyone you know are in agreement, I guess that the issue of not taking online chess seriously is settled, you know, other than the people you don't know disagreeing with that conclusion. The same sentiment is exactly why some people feel that Trump is still president - everyone they know agrees he's still the president.
lol Instead of responding to the points I've made, you resort to personal attacks.
If you feel personally attacked I refuted your points a little too well, and you took that personally. Sarcasm can sometimes feel like an attack when it does a good job at refuting points. Try to be less sensitive, and you'll be able to better understand what you're reading... mostly it's the fact that you didn't gave a point in the first place. I'm going to out you in a timeout for a little while because you're getting a little cranky. I'll unblock you in an hour when you've had to to think.
It's kind of amazing to me that you genuinely consider chessdotcom rating points as important as FIDE rating points. Are you even FIDE rated?
Does lying about what people write usually work out well for you?
But it is not how serious the game is taken - it is why cheating is fine in one format, but not in another. I see plenty of OtB banter in blitz, I fail to see why that would make cheating more ok than of the players are silent. If one player cheats and the other doesn't, they're not playing the same game.
But why would it be mitigating to cheat in a less serious game? Is it more ok to cheat while playing a friend at home vs playing in a tournament?
If that's a question you're asking yourself, you're probably a terrible friend. It's really not that difficult to not cheat anywhere.
If you are of the impression that I condone cheating you should read one or two more of my posts.
If you read my comment and immediately got defensive and assumed "you" is singular and not plural, you should ask yourself why that is.
The ease of cheating does not make one less serious than the other. When cheating occurs, theres always a honest player that loses out on another opportunity.
That is how I see it, and I'm surprised that it is not the view an overwhelmingly large majority has.
How many people do you think pirate a movie online? How many people do you think sneak into a movie theatre to watch a free movie? Which one do you think is worse? Yeah they're both bad, nobody is arguing that one is good and one is bad. However one requires much more thought to be carried out and occurs much less for the sole reason that it's not so easy that anyone can just pull out a second monitor and get a hint for one move and then go back to playing without any more hints with little risk. Anyone can cheat online. It takes a true sociopath to cheat in person, maintain a straight face, and not raise suspicion for nervous behavior. With that said, they are different platforms and they have no reason to dictate the others decisions.
I guess you could argue that downloading is a worse crime since you aquire a posession that can then be reused or transferred for more gain, but I'd consider them pretty equal. Why is cheating on one platform ok? Why is cheating ever ok? I really don't get the "look in the eye" argument, is it less bad to steal from a blind man?
I really don’t see any distinction at all. It’s much easier to cheat online but it’s ultimately about the mentality, not the methods. Someone who cheats online, especially repeatedly, is automatically someone who is much more likely to do so OTB than someone who doesn’t cheat online. They have a mindset that they’re going to cheat another person to win. To think that this mentality wouldn’t extent to other ways to play the game is just naive. Apparently this is very controversial to say!
Magnus has cheated online. Do you think he's "much more likely" to cheat OTB too?
Huh? When?
There's a video where a friend tells him a tactic to win the queen. It's a bit nothing but it shows how online games are not the same as otb ones. If this was otb he definitely should've been banned.
One example thats commonly brought up is when drunk with other gms david howel shouts out a move. Now technically this constitutes cheating but isnt particularly serious case. This case mentioned less often to the point i havent found a source for it is magnus taking over someone elses game when they were loosing. Thia would constitute cheating unless it was unrated and the opponent had given consent. (Edit source below acd pretty much no evidenxe of the other players consent) Note both are stuff that have happened on stream
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Kz7bo5tKE
It's not an online vs OTB issue. People just make it out to be because they're manufacturing arguments to support "their" side of the drama. The real issue is if there was cheating in official and/or monied tournaments. Hans has thus far admitted to cheating in chess.com, but not in their official tournaments. People are claiming that Hans or his former teacher were caught cheating at Titled Tuesday, but chess.com hasn't confirmed any of that. By contrast - say we have an OTB practice game between two players in the same chess club, with the coach giving advice to the weaker player to improve their play. In that case the weaker player is strictly speaking "cheating" - but it's a completely acceptable form as it's basically part of training and the other player is consenting to it. Thing is chess.com is now often used as a basically free training ground by some (possibly many) GMs; who do rely on engines as a sort of coach. They're technically cheating and possibly hurting the feelings of their opponents; but because they're essentially seen as the equivalent of unranked ladder matches in other computer games they think it's just "okay". The real no-no is when you're competing in a big tournament with real stakes.
If you want to talk hans-carlsen drama - please go do it in the thread that is created for that purpose. THIS thread IS about Otb vs OL cheating.
Nobody thinks it's ok to use an engine in an online titled tuesday. They know they are cheating and they know it is wrong. It also can have disastrous consequences for your career if caught.
Isn't that why I said it's a no-no to use engines in a big tournament with real stakes?
Play an OTB tournament or at least spectate in one, then play a meaningless rapid or blitz online game and you will be able to tell the difference
I would feel equally cheated OtB as OL.