It was confirmed after the game that my opponent was indeed using computer assistance :( Twitch: bit.ly/2JnuTtI Twitter: bit.ly/2sFmNqa Instagram: bit.ly/2HspaBa Website: bit.ly/2JGqVA1
In the bottom right corner at the end you can actually see that the computer analysis says "0 blunders, 0 mistakes, 0 inaccuracies" about the white game.
this is kinda difficult to watch seeing eric try so hard. of course nobody stands even the slightest chance against stockfish, but it still made my heart hurt a little. he perseveres through what is obviously an intense mental exercise against extremely unfair odds. he’s such a wholesome guy, and he handled this in the best way possible in my opinion. took it as a learning experience and didn’t get angry. gained so much respect for this guy in less than 30 minutes
it made me smile when he said at the end how it was an instructive learning experience and how he'll show it to his students, was absolutely baffled when he was able to make light of that game
i like that Eric didn't immediately suspect cheating, instead he gave respect and was "in awe" of the good moves. the cheating made for a legitimately good video :) thanks, Eric!
It's bad form to publicly call someone out for cheating. In some cases if the person makes money from chess you could even face legal action. It's best to wait until lichess determines they are a cheater which happened after the video was recorded of course
@@curtisw0234 Rosen I believe has the right to tell if someone may be using computer assistance. Why do I know this? Because he actually knows what he is talking about 😂
To those who says the sac is obivous: yeah, if the sac is accepted, it looks crushing, but you also have to calculate if the sac is refused, which is much harder.
@@StrengthScholar0 Not to mention the exchange sacrifice doesn't even lead to any huge positional advantage immediately, although in hindsight he loses vital control of the dark squares
Honestly all in all you can say it was a perfect game from white. Even if you argue that the knight and queen sacrifice could be found but the whole game was too good starting from BA3 when he stopped black from castling. Every move was like best move. I think a human could play this good but not in a 20 min game.
If he was really ethical he wouldn't use the computer drawing arrows and the like to essentially "take notes" when he is determining his next move. Try something like that in a real over-the-board tournament and the TD will punish you for cheating. No memory aids or notes are allowed when you are playing. You shouldn't even write your move down until after you have made it on the board.
Laurence Battin I don‘t think that drawing arrows is unethical, because it‘s a legal tool provided by lichess and furthermore it‘s really helpful for me as a viewer to understand Erics‘ thought process.
I like how he still takes something positive out of it, and thanks his opponent for a wonderful move to teach to his students. Now that's the attitude of a passionate teacher.
i wonder what computer assistance cheats looks like in other perfect information games other than Chess. it would be funny to make one for something like Trackmania Nations Forever
@@Drew-jy7dl wait, really? for most of what i've known about Trackmania's history, all of the ghosts in the game are pre-recorded, while there's people in the community trying to build machine learning stuff for the game. where can i find these bots?
So as I played this video I played all the moves with a chess sim. It's clear that the opponent is doing the same. What is great though, is Eric searching for calculations and predictions from the human mind and the amount of stress it is causing him. Well played Eric!
Spectacular game, it's a shame that it's computer assisted and you were on the back end of it but still there is some positive outcome out of this mess, a beautiful position to show.
@@rykehuss3435 The Stockfish on Lichess is not run on decent hardware. Actually, people like Jonathan Shrantz have beaten this version of Stockfish with special prep in the Stafford and Nakhmanson, and Magnus managed to get a drawing endgame against it. Mind you, it's still stronger than any human on Earth, but it's definitely not unbeatable.
This is in addition to the many comments about finding out that SupremeMonk's account is flagged as a computer user. If you check his games before this one, he has won 16 in a row and 18 out of 19. Overall, 94 wins in 105 games. Most of his losses are when he started playing in Lichess. Pretty strong evidence of a cheater in my opinion.
I really admire players who go out of their way to give the cheater the benefit of the doubt, especially after such a loss. "it's entirely possible a human could find that move." It's especially satisfying when the player gets caught cheating later on. Props :)
Whenever somebody seems like they are cheating against me then I let the computer analyze. If he played perfectly then I check his other games to see if this was a fluke. If all are perfect, I report him to the lichess CIA (Cheating Investigation Association or smth)
I've had quite a few games 0 mistake 0 blunders ect it does happen and i'm only a 1700 -1800 player ,depends on the game if it's highly complex and you get a 0 0 0 then yeah probably cheating ,but you'd be wrong to assume all 0 games are cheaters
@@Tobi-pn2xs Have you ever see an IM like John Bartholomew or like IM Altonian play blitz games against a 2000 uscf....it's like seeing a good player play chess against a beginner. The speed and the huge knowledge is very impressive.
@@Tobi-pn2xs and remember when some one is very tired because he has been playing non stop for for hours and he chat at the same time he cannot play has well has if he was rested.
That queen sacrifice was crazy. I don't think I would have ever found that move regardless of how much time given. I saw the point after the move but too bad that it was a computer move. If a human had played it, I would wonder if Tal was reborn.
For everyone who ask: "How do you know he is cheating?!" 1. think for yourself and L2P to spot it for yourself. 2. Watch the entire game, exspecially the moves from 11:00 and later. -> 2a) White loses a rook for a piece and get powerfull Attack: f6 weakens the kingside. With only a few minutes of thinking several moves ahead with this kind of sacrifife is nearly impossible to spot in a quickgame. 2b) Qc4 is also a very weird move to which sacrificaes again a pawns. d2 2c) even without the mistake Qa5 there are several hidden attacks for white. It's imbossible to spot them in such a shoirt amount of time without cheating. 3. White took his time on moves that are actually part of the combination, while a move that starts or force the combination are done withing seconds....! It's actually the other way around. White tries to fake human behaviour, but he fails.
I am telling the truth. I am only 1900 player but I saw both moves Ng5 and Qd5 while I was watching this game for the first time. I am amazed why Eric could not even consider it . Close your eyes and after ten seconds open them up and look at the position. It is clearly calling for Ng5. Even if you don’t see the rest of the game you must at least consider it. That’s the key word.”consider”.
What's crazy about this position is once you're looking for a queen sacrifice the entire game, I feel it's a fairly obvious queen sac, but I'd never find that move without knowing in advance ever in my life
That's called confirmation bias. They have no clue, but when a person plays a ridiculous move, they say it's obvious. It's why cheaters are given benefit of doubt.
I played someone he was playing bad at first, dropped a queen and a rook, then after about a two minute pause started playing real fast and beat me. I reported it, a month later got my points back, they caught the guy cheating.
Surprising not to hear a word on move 9, cxd4, the move from which it all goes downhill. It turns out the pawn is not defendable. Trying to defend it only prevents you from castling, connecting rooks, and developing the bishop. After move 9, cxd4, you don't have a single move to breathe.
@Elementary Watson Doesn't matter who you're playing against, if your pieces are uncoordinated on the back rank and your greedy queen is soloing like a headless chicken in the enemy camp.
It’s funny to see that the complete comment section turns into super GM‘s. „It’s not that hard to find. The position screams for Ng5 and Qd5 is the natural continuation move!“ Yeah sure guys. Go back to your boring 1500-1800 Elo games and stop spitting so big words. There is an IM that wasn’t able to find it. 2400 rated. He didn’t see it. So nope you wouldn’t have seen it ether!
It's not even the dunning kruger effect. The title says ridiculous queen sac and so everyone's looking for it and they find it. And think they could've done it without the hint either. Also, like half the puzzles on internet involve queen sac followed by forced checkmate type of solutions.
Okay, I am around 1800 ELO and I didn't spot it, I admit. Despite the hint and solving tactics for years. I though he was going to leave the queen hanging on c4 and do some other shit.. I definately saw Ng5+ (seen the pattern before) so that's not super high level, but the Qd5 move was a blindspot. To zic-zac it to c6 via d5 and then to checkmate on e8. Kind of clever eh?
The individual moves near the end were definitely possible to spot as a human, even for lower-rated players. However, it is the sequence of moves that led to that perfect positioning that are immediately suspicious. When you analyze engine-played games as a whole, you can start to see the patterns and perfect chain of moves that should be impossible for most humans to calculate in such a short amount of time. Those oddball moves that do not make sense until way later in the game are dead giveaways.
Yes, that is very un-human to just let a rook go hanging to a bishop like that. Very few humans below GM level would just let that rook go like that when there is no immediate threat. That was a very deep sacrifice.
You'd think a cheater would look at Qd5, and say "Hmmm....that move looks really sus. I shouldn't play that or they'll know I'm cheating." But instead the guy blitzes it out in two seconds.
if he took 10 seconds its not that suspicious . because its kinda obvious for decent players , but he blitzes it in 2 seconds which is an idiot thing to do
I realize this is over a year late- just saw the video today. I am woodpusher for the most part, but I did find Ng5+ and Qd5 offering the queen sac. Of course, I was looking for a chance to sacrifice white's queen the entire game, so probably not hard to find for this reason. However, I will assume that LiChess did a statistical analysis of the entire game and compared it to common engines- otherwise there would be no excuse for banning someone.
Not sure how it could've been done, but it's super painful to see the light squared bishop and both rooks on their original squares. You're basically playing with the queen and c6 knight (which has no moves). The moral for me is: concentrate on the development race. That queen sac c4 to d5. She didn't have any un-attacked squares to move to, did she?
To be fair that Queen "sac" was a pretty obvious move as it has 2 mating threats and its not like you are in a bullet game, so he had time to think about it.
eric rosen sat at the table, eyes glued to the enemy king in his backrank. how could the king walk proudly to his side of the board and capture his queen? Eric never felt such paralysis, all his pieces deserting their posts as if to surrender to their new ruler. Eric said Oh No My Queen, and his opponent slaughtered all of his pieces and acquired 9 queens... stalemating him. Erics eyes rolled to the back of his head, frothing at the mouth he slumped back in his chair.
Any decent chess player sees that this whole plan from the exchange sac to this deadly attack played so quickly feels completely inhuman. This is pretty ironic: by claiming that Qd5 was obvious or that black played badly you're actually showing your misunderstanding of chess, not how smart you are.
I wonder why at 22:35 he did not take either pawn, the knight blocked the rook, so he could have taken the pawn on f4 and then the only "discovered" checks if the knight moved (exposing the rook to his queen) the queen could have just taken the knight.
More than the queen sac i liked the coordination of his pieces. After sac the exchange your pieces looks kinda ridiculous your rooks were never active and so does the c8 bishop so you had to find cheapos with your queen (Basic chess rules don't move the same piece too many times). And then when you made the position more unbalanced with b5 (amazing move) he just keeps everything coordinate in this very extraordinary way. Not sure about what computer says but does Ng5 Qd5 are the only advantage moves? i tried to find ideas like you and it seems like you manage to organize your pieces if not for that bizarre sequence, and then you're just up an exchange. I will definitely show this game to my students if you won't mind.
A computer see many moves ahead on each move......my 22 years old computer saw both moves in 2 min at level 6 but not at level 5....at level 6 he think 8 to 10 half moves ahead all the time...at level 5 he see mates in 8 half moves ahead...he has 8 level plus an infinite level..... And he feel no pressure and no distraction....;) he is only 1900 ELO at level 7.
It is not a ridiculous sac when it's mate a move later. A ridiculous sac is when it takes effect 10 moves later and that is what is brilliant about it. I mean those of Tal or Nezhmedinov
That is an easy sacrifice to find if you are looking at what squares are attacked around the black king, and my highest rating thus far is only around 2100. I won't dispute that the guy cheated, although the only way I can figure that they determine this is to plug the moves into an engine and see if every move is symmetrical, but if someone throws in weaker moves a lot I don't see how one could definitively determine someone was cheating, and as long as those weaker moves aren't bad, playing the best move strategically seems to me to be undetectable. Or what if someone uses an older engine, which is still going to play better than the majority of human players, but which would get crushed by Stockfish? I'm just wondering exactly how cheating is determined, because it is not unfathomable that there could be some chess prodigy who just is not interested enough in the game to do more than casually play online occasionally. I guess it sucks for that person if they exist, because it would be easy to say that their play is on par with your super GM's, but the individual is an unknown player, but the odds of such a thing occurring are low enough where the issue likely has never arisen. I suppose they might also look at the time it takes to move the pieces, since it takes time to input the move into whatever engine they are using, so immediate moves are less likely to be made by cheaters if I am picturing the process correctly, but then someone could maybe write some code to take the engine move and input it into the browser game. Or if that was not directly possible, some software to actually manipulate the cursor itself. Fortunately the average cheater is unlikely to be able to accomplish this, and it is just a hypothetical anyway. It wouldn't be worth worrying about simply because it is so unlikely. It always makes me wonder when someone seems very strong, and they take almost exactly the same amount of time for each move. Like the evidence cited above, really all this is circumstantial, as there cannot be direct evidence of cheating online in most cases, and the site doesn't want cheaters to give them a bad name since no one would want to play there, so I can see the point of using circumstantial evidence to label cheaters. Anyway, you played a pretty good game regardless.
Your voice is so calming. Your videos will definitely be added to my lullaby collection which also houses Jerry Chessnetwork. Btw, due to cheating concerns, if we can’t hear your ideas then some purpose of these videos is rendered moot. What to do?
Ng5+ I spotted almost immediately after Qb2, and I intuitively could tell it was white's best move, but I definitely couldn't tell that it was winning and didn't see that Qd5 follow-up.
SupremeMonk, remember the sage words of Grasshopper - "A worker is known by his tools…. a shovel for a man who digs…. an axe for a woodsman..... Stockfish for a patzer" - Caine
Honestly, I do not see it as an engine move. The black king did not move out of the pin and thereby got punished. the Qd5 was quick after Ng5+ because it is part of the sequence of moves that white was calculating during that long pause.
Part of the reason I stopped playing online chess many years ago was because of cheaters. And it’s still going on today perhaps more so than ever. People are vile.
@@majorcatastrophe2829 Still, aquiring the guts to sac the exchange like that isn't particulaty human. Perhaps in a classical game players the likes of Carlsen would be able to calculate all of it but mate wasn't at all clear at that point
Hey Eric I love your content! I think I got the perfect merch suggestion for you....put the words "Queen d5!!" on the front (But use an actual picture of a queen with the move d5!!) and on the back have the words, "Oh my gosh!! Are you serious?" or "if this works, this guy is a genius!" Or "That's ridiculous!"
Sometimes, i also could see the sacrifice. It is like, you suddenly could grasp the whole board But i agree if there are certain anamoly of this guy's games you could check his game history
"it was confirmed that my opponent was using computer assistance". I could have told you that on Qc3-Qc4, lol. Believe it or not that's the most suspicious move order for me. I actually saw Ng5 Qd5 (though to be fair I was already looking for a spectacular Q sac because of the title of your video). But playing Qc3 - c4 was so unhuman. [I'm around 2300 fide].
The engine managed to sacrifice its queen against Eric Rosen! Wow! It's the most disgusting, savage queen sacrifice by an engine I've ever seen! Too bad the cheater got banned after that. lol!
I found Ng5, but only because I had been looking at Qf4 when you were considering where to escape to with your queen before you went Qb2. Even then I only stumbled onto it as a way to unleash the rook onto the queen, but then the queen would just take the knight and escape to safety, or trade with the other queen if the knight had instead moved to e5. But I also wasn't in the stress of the moment too. I always get blinders during the game.
Using computer assistance is not cheating, it’s showing weakness. But if you play like a robot with little creativity you won’t be able to take advantage. If you characterize moves as “crazy” you are shutting down your own creative potential.
