How do I confront a chess opponent who lied about their skill level?

[Jack21222]

One more thing, easy googleable databases reveal that statistically, white wins much more than black. Hence, if you lose playing black, it says nothing and white should agree to a reva(e)nche with changed colors. If you lose playing with white, you just lost.

You need to define "much more." White is supposed to have a slight advantage, but nowhere have I heard that white wins "much more" than black. Can you give me a source?

Actually, let me do some of this on my own, searching a few grandmasters on chessgames.com

Viktor Korchnoi: (win-loss-draw)

White pieces: 1073-315-843 Average score: .670 (wins are 1 point, draws are a half)
Black pieces: 758-456-1015 Average score: .568

Mikhail Tal:

White pieces: 717-113-602 Average score: .711
Black pieces: 447-187-721 Average score: .600

I can see where you're coming from, that white scores about 20% better than black (at least for these two examples). If you disregard draws, there are more wins for white than wins for black. Whether this is "much more" is up for debate, I guess.

 

[Andre]

You need to define "much more." ..

I can see where you're coming from, that white scores about 20% better than black (at least for these two examples). .

check this

You'd see that the weighted average of the first four opening moves -clearly >95% in the majority- comes to 38.28% wins for white against 30.35% wins for black. Hence white wins about '26%' (38.28/30.35 -1) more often than black.

It also tells you to avoid weird openings like 1: f4 or 1: b4

 

[Andre]

check this

You'd see that the weighted average of the first four opening moves -clearly >95% in the majority- comes to 38.28% wins for white against 30.35% wins for black. Hence white wins about '26%' (38.28/30.35 -1) more often than black.

It also tells you to avoid weird openings like 1: f4 or 1: b4

Okay I calculated all the numbers and got to 38.22% wins for white and 30.47% wins for black giving white 25.4% edge.

Interesting is that the odd freak openings give a high proportion of wins to black. A guess could be that 'weaker' white players tend to try outlier opening moves to confuse their stronger black opponents. Obviously that doesn't work.

 

[turbo]

Interesting is that the odd freak openings give a high proportion of wins to black. A guess could be that 'weaker' white players tend to try outlier opening moves to confuse their stronger black opponents. Obviously that doesn't work.

The Pirc offense was one of these openings. It seems counter-intuitive, but it laid all kinds of traps for the unwary.

 

[Andre]

Yet overal, Pirc doesn't seem a good idea for black in the end, considering that you know the traps.

 

[turbo]

Yet overal, Pirc doesn't seem a good idea for black in the end, considering that you know the traps.

I used the Pirc as an offense. Black is flabbergasted when White wants to double fianchetto. It is hard to describe, but the situations that arise from that snarly opening can result in Black getting decimated. Got to be open to those situations, though.

 

[QuantumPion]

This guy, an amateur chess player, beat 9 chess world champions simultaneously using a sneaky trick :)
http://www.wimp.com/chessplayers/

 

[drizzle]

That's very cool QP.

I don't know why I feel kind of embarrassed when people expect me to be good at chess just because I do physics. :shy:

 

[Andre]

I don't know why I feel kind of embarrassed when people expect me to be good at chess just because I do physics.

Don't be. No reason whatsover. Assuming that we have a normal healthy creative mind, somewhere short of genius, any advanced skill requires strong motivation for learning and practice, practice and more practice. Builing chess skills just requires the same motivation for years of learning and practice as math and physics do, as it does becoming a fighter pilot, in my opinion.

 

[Curious3141]

This guy, an amateur chess player, beat 9 chess world champions simultaneously using a sneaky trick :)
http://www.wimp.com/chessplayers/

When I was watching his game, my mind was screaming "mirror games". Turns out I figured correctly.

As for the number of pieces left over, that's trickier. A switch definitely had to have been made, otherwise the only other possibility is collusion.

 

[Borek]

When I was watching his game, my mind was screaming "mirror games". Turns out I figured correctly.

There was a Polish TV series shot in seventies called "Parade of cheaters" where one of the episodes was about a guy who played correspondence chess with two masters at the same time, so the idea was obvious for me from the very beginning.

 

[Curious3141]

There was a Polish TV series shot in seventies called "Parade of cheaters" where one of the episodes was about a guy who played correspondence chess with two masters at the same time, so the idea was obvious for me from the very beginning.

I had not actually heard of this technique, but when I saw the way he had arrayed the players, it clicked.

But I couldn't be sure as it seemed an obvious method with an obvious foil - force the challenger to answer the move before moving on to the next board, every time. I was amazed none of those chess "geniuses" thought of that when they knew they'd be playing a professional mentalist.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When I was watching his game, my mind was screaming "mirror games". Turns out I figured correctly.

As for the number of pieces left over, that's trickier. A switch definitely had to have been made, otherwise the only other possibility is collusion.

His claim never to have touched the paper after it was placed in the envelope would carry more weight with me if he hadn't touched the paper after it was placed in the envelope.

 

[Galteeth]

I have an idea. Members here could sign up at one of the free chess sites and then post their member names if they wanted to play against other PF members. (My ranking on chesshotel.com is currently 1760, btw.)

 

[Monsterboy]

I never underestimate my opponent in chess ,even if i play against a 10 year old

 

[Monsterboy]

But like I was saying above, when facing someone who is new to the game, you don't want to play your absolute best. That wouldn't be fair to the person trying to learn to play. I am more fair and honest than I am a guy that demolishes and starts saying, "you lose!" That would not be right in my opinion.

I also want to be fair...

if you want to be fair then you should give your best and crush your opponent so that he/she will know what chess really is, by going easy you are actually deceiving him/her by letting them think that they are good or that chess is easy. You don't have to say "YOU LOSE AND I WIN ",just say that "you can do better next time".

 

[Best Pokemon]

It's just a game... Don't get all upset because of a game...

Chess is serious stuff.