A 'hot take' is an opinion which is considered controversial.
an opening isn't bad just because the engine says so. Spassky beat Fischer with the kings gambit, but the engine considers it unsound
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
online chess has way more cheaters than is said, the percentage is way higher than any statistic says
Here:
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-is-one-of-easiest-things-in-category-hard-stuff
Hahahahah self-thread promotion!!!
@N00801 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/EILY4y8z)
> online chess has way more cheaters than is said, the percentage is way higher than any statistic says
1: Chess sites like LiChess or Chess.crap have it in their best interest to report cheating lower than actually happens, else who would want to go play chess on a site where rampant cheating is happening that is reported on? Nobody.
2: Chess.com player pool is not better than LiChess. The rating systems are different.
@Smoky_burnout said [^](/forum/redirect/post/YI8ID6Ep)
> Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Oh wait, is here any awarness of forgiveness or mistakes can happen?
online chess is best suited for training or fun, not meaningful competition because cheating exists and paranoia over potential cheating will never be satiated.
Chess should be approached methodically and as a science, neither as an art nor as a game.
(@)imanoob424: 'an opening isn't bad just because the engine says so.' ~ 'Bad' can be relative. 'Bad,' 'bad against preparation,' and, 'bad at engine level.' Some objectively bad openings are ---or can be--- good at human level, depending on the circumstances.
'Spassky beat Fischer with the kings gambit, but the engine considers it unsound' ~ That victory was decades ago; it was one time; it could be a fluke; it could be to avoid preparation... This, 'A good player won with a strategy one time, so it must be good' myth seems quite common.
The King's Gambit used to be good, but no longer is. Chess is an evolving game; what used to be good may not always be, and we should not get caught up in the results of the past. When looking at how a strategy performed, we should consider the specific environments, times, and situations in which it did.
'What is the use of looking towards the past? If past data dictates reality, then our 33,1 winning percentage last year means we should not even be playing [a different team] and their 66,7 winning percentage.' ~ Toua from One Outs.
***
(@)Smoky_burnout: Everyone has cheated in a game at least once in their life.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.