Growing level of play in blitz

@userfriendly2 said in #20:
> .........
> .........
> 2. Programmes like the recently discussed rocket chess etc - and using it for a few difficult positions etc to avoid detection.
>
> I stick to faster time controls to avoid cheating online.....

I'm just not sensing that at all in my Long time control games. After 6 months away, I started back playing a ton of Classical games on October 29, so roughly 6 weeks ago. Probably 2 games daily on this site, and at least one on another site, mostly at least 30+30 games, and more often 45+45. I sort for my rating level down to maybe 200 points below, so not that different from your range probably. I've gained rating, and in my last 15 games I'm ( + 7, -0, =8 ). And it's not like I'm playing that great: Post game analysis shows I've thrown away a lot of points. If anything, people are playing LESS well than they should --- leaving games, when they could draw or win, or just giving up when they apparently think "he MUST be winning, he has a high rating...."

If there was all this cheating going on at long time controls, I'd be losing Way more of these games.

Just not seeing it. (knock on wood)

And I'll add --

I've noticed a lot of conscientious players: Sticking around to seriously analyze the games and figure out where we went wrong; trying to improve themselves

30+30 is a really long time control. I'm a slow player and I won't touch a game of that length. And that may be the answer to what your seeing. Why would a cheater waste his time on a game of that length he wouldn't. And if a high proportion of cheaters are young (I don't know this but that's the conventional wisdom in this conversation) they're never going to have the patience for that time control.

You hit the jackpot @Ahmadinejad the 30+30 TC is probably cheat free!

> 30+30 TC is probably cheat free

I'm sure none of them are cheat free. But there's a pretty widespread human impulse to look for the causes of defeat outside of yourself. Cheating is probably not near as rampant as some of the commenters over the past year seem to believe --- No matter what time control you consider. And it's a little corrosive to the atmosphere if people believe the most dire scenarios you see here from time to time.

@Ahmadinejad said in #31:
> I'm just not sensing that at all in my Long time control games.

You could be onto something there - and another poster said that maybe that time control is too long for serial cheaters? Good point too.

Be that as it may, the products rarely create the market - they cater to it. If there is cheating software popping up all over the place - some for free and some for cash you can be damn sure there is a market for it.

@Ahmadinejad said in #31:
> I'm just not sensing that at all in my Long time control games. After 6 months away, I started back playing a ton of Classical games on October 29, so roughly 6 weeks ago. Probably 2 games daily on this site, and at least one on another site, mostly at least 30+30 games, and more often 45+45. I sort for my rating level down to maybe 200 points below, so not that different from your range probably. I've gained rating, and in my last 15 games I'm ( + 7, -0, =8 ). And it's not like I'm playing that great: Post game analysis shows I've thrown away a lot of points. If anything, people are playing LESS well than they should --- leaving games, when they could draw or win, or just giving up when they apparently think "he MUST be winning, he has a high rating...."
>
> If there was all this cheating going on at long time controls, I'd be losing Way more of these games.
>
> Just not seeing it. (knock on wood)

Also at lower rating levels there's less cheating, because if they were cheating, they'd be at higher rating level :-)

@LloydThompson said in #34:
> I'm sure none of them are cheat free. But there's a pretty widespread human impulse to look for the causes of defeat outside of yourself. Cheating is probably not near as rampant as some of the commenters over the past year seem to believe --- No matter what time control you consider. And it's a little corrosive to the atmosphere if people believe the most dire scenarios you see here from time to time.
+++ Do you think players with 2100 blitz and and classical that have 1000-1300 bullet rating legit players? Of course they are not. And it is rampant. Accuracy in slower time control 90-98% that is pretty unrealistic for someone who has 1000-1700 lichess bullet rating; against 2000 above players. They can not cheat in 1 min or 1+1 bullet the only reason they stay low in bullet but very high up to 2500 in blitz.

@joselito_rivera3 said in #37:
> +++ Do you think players with 2100 blitz and and classical that have 1000-1300 bullet rating legit players? Of course they are not. And it is rampant.

I don't care about Blitz. That's fun for some people, but it's not real chess. Classical cheating that's "rampant" would concern me I guess, if I was trying to make money. I'm more trying to create a few good games here and there and for pure enjoyment. How are you defining "rampant" in classical play on this site, for instance?

@LloydThompson said in #38:
> How are you defining "rampant" in classical play on this site, for instance?
+++ Oh my i just said it. To all those who have 2100 above classical but have 1000-1300 bullet. Still obvious even having 1600 bullet and 2100 classical. The difference can't be that big. And the accuracy and average centipawn.

@LloydThompson said in #38:
> I don't care about Blitz.
+++ Well, we do care. As what the thread title suggest.