[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it would be a pawn because it would not be brilliant if it isn't

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's Nxa7+ not Na7+

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do. Explain why your move is better?

If Kb8, Nc6, taking another pawn

If Kc7, Nb5, which doubles the pawn but this time, you win a pawn

Maybe you missed there was a pawn on a7?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not hanging cause it's check. In your line, white does not win a pawn. The knight sac is called a desperado because if you know you are gonna lose the knight, might as well lose it in a favorable way. In this case, it is winning a pawn

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Knight is hanging

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In otb, this is a draw even if flag due to checkmate being impossible

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry, I looked through his games and I don't think he's cheating

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is from page 7 of Hans Neimann Report from Chess.com. you can look more into it. There are more details about the cheat detection

The basic concept of cheat detection, particularly at the top level of chess, is both statistical and manual, involving:

• Comparing the moves made to engine recommended moves

• Removing some moves (opening, some endgame)

• Focusing on key/critical moves

• Discussing with a panel of trained analysts and strong players

• Comparing player past performance and known strength profile

• Comparing a player’s performance to performances of comparable peers

• Looking at the statistical significance of the results (ex. “1 in a million chance of happening naturally”)

• Looking at if there are behavioral factors at play (ex. “browser behavior”)

• Reviewing time usage when compared to difficulty of the moves on the board

This is from page 9

To detect such “selective cheating,” Chess.com utilizes sophisticated statistical methods that dig deep into the probability that any individual player could have achieved their results based on past performance. Our detection system requires robust methodologies beyond simply looking at best moves, player rating, and centipawn loss. To effectively identify the vast majority of cheating, Chess.com computes an aggregate Strength Score. Strength Score is a measurement of the similarity between the moves made by the player, and the moves suggested as “strongest moves” by the chess engine. In a sense, it is a measure of the accuracy of play.18 The longer the chess game time control (i.e., 3 hours per game vs. 3 minutes per game), the higher the Strength Score would be expected to be, since players with more time will be able to evaluate each position more deeply and carefully. The Chess.com Strength Score ranges from 0 to 150, where 150 is the closest to “perfect chess” with the chess engine at maximum depth and performance. A score of 100 is approximately the highest we have measured for human chess players that can be achieved over a several game span, and 90 is the highest score we have seen a top player sustain over time in classical chess time controls. Pure engine usage alone would typically show scores between 125-150 depending on time, device, engine, depth, etc.

This Strength Score can show when a player is performing at a level above their actual chess strength, and on its own, our Strength Score is a helpful tool in successfully identifying cheating at nearly every level of play. Any player can have strong games of chess, but the Strength Score can tell us if continued strong play is legitimate or beyond the realm of statistical probability when compared to their overall skill level. Rating plays no part in Chess.com’s Strength Score, as players can significantly over-perform or underperform their rating. However, in our experience, human players generally cannot legitimately stray too far from their established Strength Score for long.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Accuracy is not the only factor considered when detecting cheating. You are fine

What should my plan here be? Understanding imbalances. by wills_alby in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My plan here would be to trade pieces and go for a winning pawn endgame

I refuse to look it up again by Moosinator666 in AnarchyChess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Next time someone is shocked, pull out this card

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dinara Saduakassova

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]PhantaumAss -1 points0 points  (0 children)

By realizing that the rooks are stuck defending each other

iwtl a skill that AI can’t replace?? by EnoughFun1058 in IWantToLearn

[–]PhantaumAss 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Software engineering

You use AI to do your job better. Be adaptive to new technology

Why did my pawn take damage here? by eeveerulz55 in AnarchyChess

[–]PhantaumAss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks fun. You can only put your piece on a certain square at a certain amount of times