I think Levy's video above has some major flaws in the logic presented. Just because your opponent sacrificed all of his pieces and yet won doesn't necessarily mean they cheated... they could just be playing on 'another level'.
The most suspicious moves are not sacrificial moves, but weird positional stuff. Like moving the queen back one space because 5 moves later it's gonna save you a tempo.
Exactly this. Plenty of examples of queen sacrifices by humans. I saw one where the computer said to move a perfectly safe king. Made zero sense to a human that can't see 25 moved ahead.
Agreed. This video is misleading as any good chess player would sacrifice a queen if it led to a checkmate in 2 to 3 moves. Its the niche positional ones that are like, what the?
Absolutely, you can almost instantly tell if someone is cheating by those moves. Random king move in the middle of a game that seems to achieve nothing (happens in lower elo and very high elo tho sometimes), or those weird queen/bishop one tile moves when there seems to be more forward progessing moves available.
Definitely, i play chess to find opportunities to do moves like this sacrifice it's my main motivation to play finding the "impossible" moves More accurately "improbable" moves
He's refering to sacrifices that are not very obvious. If you see gms playing engines for example the way they sacrifice pieces is very different, and the engine might do it completely out of the blue for no immediately seen advantage just because it evaluates the position as better The example here was just very bad
He also said that no human has ever made a move like the sacrifice that he showcased. This is misleading. It was a bad example. Rest of his ideas were really informative
@@rainchopper898Pin of shame. Dude, not everyone watching this video is high-rated chess nerd, like come on, any 1k would probably see mate in 3 or 4 occasionally, it's just an example he gave to wider range public, the sacrifice which are not so obvious.
@@octobsession3061high rated chess nerd? On a chess website 1000 elo is practically still a beginner lmfao. The example sucked Levy talking out of his butt this is why he’s only good for teaching scrubs
@@rainchopper898 He said that no human has ever made that particular sequence of moves. Not any sequence resembling that one. Obviously, he knows that people make queen sacrifices sometimes.
@@resir9807 Black shouldn't take the queen, but the move is still very strong even if you don't "fall for it." Qd5 threatens the knight on c6. Move the knight and you lose the rook on a8 and you're dying on the back rank. The bishop can't defend the knight because the queen can take it if it goes to d7 and if it goes to b7 it stops defending e6. Qd5 is one of those moves that looks impossible at first glance, but once you see it is possible then it becomes crushing. It isn't an example of a "bot move" at higher levels, since it'd be easily findable by a good player, but if played quickly at low levels it'd certainly be suspicious.
Well the point is that is very unlikely to see a so risky sacrifice sequence (there is the knight’s one also) in let’s say 10-12 sec, maybe Magnus, Hikaru and some others super GM could but…
@@auzad3s601 no pretty much any competent player can figure out that mate pretty quickly. Humans are generally pretty good at attacking moves but it's usually the positional long termoves that they struggle more at. I think he used a bad example here
exactly, thought this was a bit weird. I feel like Levy gave a more simplified explanation for this as there probably would be moves that are definitely a lot of tactics that might actually be suspicious, but probably was a lot harder to explain in an interview than a 3-move tactic plus I suppose he's mostly explaining cheaters at a low elo, probably
@@shtuffsgood example explained poorly. the main point is that the opponent doesnt have to recapture, and u seemingly gain nothing by keeping ur queen in danger only defended by a flimsy tactic
Time control is very important here. Online chess, not classical. Carlsen said that he only need to get the hint when to look up for something to win majority of his games, so he would prob took his time and find this ez when someone said: now, but during the regular online which is usually blitz game, not really a chance to even search for something that crazy.
Because in these game developers dont want to put a perfect bot in, AI in these games are designed to train players to be ready for iron or bronze gameplay. If you take a look at FIFA for example, the hardest difficulty (UT Ultimate) is like top 0.5% between players. Even in Dota, Open AI Five beat OG 2-0 after OG won back to back International
Also a great chess explainer. Watched one of his videos randomly and it was very entertaining and informative. I know basically just a little more than the basics about chess and his video had me hooked.
@@ItzOndra Up to that point, it only had one actual response. Your copy/paste of other people's comment-idea added nothing, except for a slew of other meaningless comments, and this one calling it out. Thanks for contributing to the death of intelligent discourse.
I'm a chess noob, but it looks to me like Wired cut the recording of Levy's computer move analysis into random confusing bits and pieces for dramatic effect because they don't trust their viewers to concentrate and stay attentive for more than 20 seconds.
If you'd like to see a video where Levy had the chance to explain in more detail, check out any of his chess cheating videos (try searching for "Gothamchess cheaters"). In those videos, he breaks down the games in funny but educational ways.
Someone asked Kasparov about this and I found his answer very interesting-he said that at the grandmaster level, all a cheater needs to know is that they have a winning move. This is a signal that only has to be done once-making it incredibly hard to detect-because at grandmaster level it only takes 1 major mistake or oversight to lose the game entirely.
Nakamura basically said the same thing in his podcast ep with Lex Fridman. Not even winning move but just a more advantageous move- just a signal so he will spend more time and find it. The explanation is fine, but the example given is for the non-players, for sure.
Maybe multiple top players have said similar things. I remember seeing a video where Vishy Anand explained that not long after Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and computers became indisputably stronger than humans, he realised cheating was now almost impossible to detect, as he only needed to be told once in a game which critical position to be careful or spend more time on, and he'd significantly raise his winning percentage. He doesn't need to be told the moves. All the top GMs are already looking at top moves suggested by engines most of the time. But it is not always easy to evaluate which move is slightly better, and in which positions, there may be one move that is much better than others which isn't obvious. Just telling the super-GM there is something in a position once in the game, and that's all the assistance they need to become much stronger players.
It’s interesting that when Gary Kasparov played Deep Blue, he thought IBM were cheating for the opposite reason… the computer suddenly changed its personality where it wouldn’t take predictable risks and cautiousness is a very human emotion. Gary tried to bait the computer but for some reason the computer wouldn’t take his piece. Imagine doing a move like the one in this video, when white goes to sacrifice their Queen and the black pawn just ignores it. He said it was the only computer (at the time) that wouldn’t take a high value piece when it could.
Unless you can see literally 2 moves ahead and go, wel gee if i take the queen, I'm moving my pawn out of the way of that bishop, dun dun. Although, the queen being there can also take and then you have check again.
@@PBMS123 He described early computers as materialistic rather than thinking ahead . If they could take a high value piece, now, then they would. He also played a few games against the computer (maybe best of 5) and said the computers playing style or personality suddenly changed. If you haven’t seen it already, I highly recommend watching the documentary, I think it’s called “Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine”
@@notmenotme614 Early computers would overevaluate material after a long sequence. However, if they spot checkmate in a couple of moves after potentially taking a piece they just won't take.
This is not what happened in the Deep Blue match. Kasparov didn't bait the computer to take one of his pieces. There were two instances in the second match Kasparov played against Deep Blue that Kasparov found suspicious. In the first instance, Deep Blue avoided a variation that would have allowed it to win two pawns. It wasn't the best variation but engines back then didn't have a very good evaluation system and valued material gains more highly than other factors because material is easy to calculate. The second and more famous instance was in the last game of the match. Kasparov played a dubious opening with the black pieces because he thought that Deep Blue wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate it. The opening was dubious because there was a well-known knight sacrifice for white that refuted the line. Engines back then didn't go for sacrifices unless they would immediately lead to a win so Kasparov was sure that Deep Blue wouldn't go for it. But it did and Kasparov lost the game. To this day Kasparov claims that this move was not played by Deep Blue but that a human chess player made the move. After all, the knight sacrifice was well-known among high-level chess players. However, the Deep Blue team claimed that they had entered this exact line into the opening book of Deep Blue before the game. That would be a huge coincidence but who knows.
0:09 does make some sense because it’s checkmate in only 2, however a human would probably sac the bishop instead of queen but I think it’s because psychologically an opponent is way more likely to take a queen than bishop
I don’t think it was even than crazy of an idea. It’s not hard to spot that move. Maybe the engine getting him to the position to be able to do this is what was fishy? Idk.
@@anonymously94 If black doesn't capture the queen, there's another followup move white can make that's instant checkmate. If white does other things to try to postpone or get out of that checkmate, their position suffers or they lose material.
To be honest, that Qd5 at the beginning is so majestic and not suspicious at all, the move itself does not mean cheating. The combination to get to that position though, may indicate otherwise
@@ranDOm9431The knight sacrifice makes perfect sense to me: It keeps pressure on the black king. Whenever you can control your opponent's king you should.
@@bramvanduijn8086 afther the black King moves, both queen and knight are under attack. Qd5 move should have been calculated ahead of time for the knight sac to make sense. It's not just Qd5 or the knight sac, but the combination that leads to it's insane difficuty for a human
The first mate he used is actually a pretty common mating pattern, the sacrifice is nice but the double bishop mate is a bodens mate and ive practiced it a lot on lichess, i could totes see a player spotting that move
Yeah like it was a nice sequence and not the easiest to find, but it's not like an unsolvable puzzle. If you post that position on r/chess I bet a lot of people would figure it out. Strange to use that particular example
I feel like they edited it weird. even as a relative beginner, I've done puzzles that have used similar ideas so I think it's very likely even intermediate players would spot it
Yeah, I'd be pretty uncomfortable playing anywhere that would deem me a cheater for making such moves. Those moves seem well within what even like an 1800-rated player could do, especially in slower time controls. I'm going through a tactics trainer intended for players around 1600 and some of the puzzles are not much easier than that. Of course, when you tell someone there is something to find like in a puzzle, it's easier than finding the same thing out of the blue in a real game.
Hikaru mentioned that you can cheat by simply relating a single beep. Beep means there's an important move to pay attention. If you know a move exists, you try hard to find it. No beep means the moves are not hard to find. You don't lose time.
One beep for important defensive move, two beeps important offensive move, three beeps important move which is defensive but is also offensive. How about that?
The first example is tragically bad imo I guess its fine not to give a new player that credit but the King is very obviously vulnerable and you only need to think 1 move ahead to conclude Queen sacrifice
Yeah I’m almost sure they simplified it. Most likely gotham explained a longer sequence and they just showed the end, or he had a different example and wired vetoed it because it was too confusing. This is meant to be for people who don’t play chess so the example couldn’t be too complicated
I think he or Eric Rosen has a video explaining that position and it is actually a very deep move because accepting the queen results in checkmate, but declining the queen isn't possible either without losing. Thing is, in that position you can decline the sacrifice in a variety of ways, and you have to find refutations for all of them. Not only you'd have to calculate a large number of possible lines but you would also have to have the confidence that you aren't wrong in any of them
I had a great game recently, I won with a dubious checkmate. I used the computer analysis to see what the computer thought of my game. I had a 66% accuracy lol
@@ComradeChamslate comment but the context is: sometimes you end a game feeling that you played great, then you look at the computer analysis afterwards and realize you made a bunch of mistakes. In terms of accuracy percentage, it really depends on the game (disparity between players, if someone makes a significant blunder, opening knowledge, etc) but being in the 60% range is not good
@@BarSalad its depends, I can score about 80+ accuracy against 1200s and win most games, but always score around 60~ against 1800s and lost most games. So you can't decide your play is good or bad by the accuracy alone.
That queen gambit is really straight forward. It's mate in 2. I get that there are other queen sacs that only a computer would see, but I would expect anyone as good as Levy to see that particular example.
Keep in mind that most of the people watching this channel aren't chess players. You can't really expect them to understand why the actual moves that GMs consider 'bot moves' are even good at all.
Definitely a believable human move, but real bot moves sac the queen the uncork some ten move combo that a general audience wouldn’t be able to follow lol. Also I’d say it depends on rating. A 500 finding a queen sac for mate in 2 is sus.
Im pretty sure that example was more about finding that knight sac. You know now that it works, but you dont normally simply even consider and calculate a move like that because moving a knight under attack when your own queen is already under one is very counter intuitive.
@@LauriKarjanlahti I've done it before but I'm a very aggressive player. I think a lot of the moves were edited out as this example is pretty bad at best.
levy has really become the go-to guy for all chess content catered to the general masses. being a long time chess fan myself, i never really liked levy's videos, but i respect the hustle, and him making it to the top.
If someone moves his queen like that in a game your first thought would be "wtf is this??? Is it just a bait or am I dead already" When someone does this kind of move you know you are in a problem not because you think the enemy is cheating, but because you know your opponent had to have a reason to do this "idiotic " move
@@mhkk1491 I don't think you need to be a grandmaster to suspect a bait vs a blander. It depends on how much time is left (is he in a rush?), The playstyle your op had till that point, and how obvious it is. In this example the fact the queen can die is super obvious, so unless it was a missclick or op nearly put of time, it is probably a bait
The example is literally just an oversimplified version of it for the audience. This is not actually a video for chess pros, dude. The real life example is them giving up their queen for a checkmate 4 or 5 moves away which not even most grandmasters can do.
The example that was chosen doesn't make too much sense for experienced players is because that position is meant for beginners to get the general ideas of bots using weird moves to cheat. Sacrificing a Queen is way more counter intuitive for a beginner than maybe a weird positional move.
When I lose, the game was so bad that I don't want to look at the analysis. When I win, I'm more likely to analyze it because I can see what I did wrong and feel better about still winning.
With all due respect, elite players sacrifice their Queens for victory all the time. I agree with everything else you said but in that example it was only three moves. You admitted that Grandmasters regularly think that far ahead. Especially because in that scenario the other person playing would definitely take the bait 9/ 10 times.
@@blaze556922 In that case I don't feel what is mostly suspicious is the last queen move, but the whole sequence. Although I agree that while that move is unfindable 29 days a month for even high level common players, sequences like that, and honestly even more impressive ones, have been played throughout chess history by humans.
@@ImGonnaOilYouUp that’s not Dunning-Kruger, an effect that has been ironically misused. I think Levy, while doing a great job explaining, could have explained this better. Grandmasters DO sacrifice. They also do things that look, to men as a bad chess player, just as crazy.
The opening example feels a bit weird, I think any slightly experienced player would see that the queen to D5 move is safe because an attempt to take the queen results in immediate checkmate, and an experienced opponent would see that taking the queen results in checkmate as well.The full version of it later does however feel completely absurd.
gotham was once despised by a whole enraged nation and even received death threats just because he accused his opponent is cheating. turned out the opponent was in fact cheating lol. :))
@@shingofan GothamChess accused an Indonesian player (Dewa_Kipas) for cheating and then his account is blocked, this enraged a lot of people in the country. Long story short, GothamChess was right. You should look it up it's an interesting story how an entire country was fooled and start sending death threat over a small thing
The opposite happened to me.... Kingscrusher accused me of cheating on ICC and I got banned and received death threats.... but my account was reinstated after revealing my identity.... I made a rap song about him, but he had my public song removed, this one is unlisted ruclips.net/video/uw3woxUbIBE/видео.html
The first example was actually pretty easy to spot, you’re queen is being attacked so you’re looking for a square to escape to and naturally you would find d5 as the best move.
It’s simplified to appeal and make sense to a broader audience. Someone like me who doesn’t know about more in-depth chess tactics won’t be able to follow along, but with a simple example like that, which is humanly possible to find, it makes more sense and helps get the point across
This is something I for example look out for in every game cuz forced sequences initiated by sacrifice are so fun :P also this is a 2 move sequence so not too bad - king moves are more sus ^^
1. To incentivize the user while they're doing something incredibly monotonous... 2. Because why not? xD 3. Guess you could ask at the gym that Levy was talking about... Sadly, i don't know the details, but maybe they're somewhere on the internet.
I can definitely see a human playing the first move. It looks ridiculous at first, but when you look closely it's really not all that bizzare. It leads to a pretty obvious checkmate if taken (as demonstrated) and puts pressure on the knight at b6. The only recourse black has is to sacrafice bishop which completely destroys any defensibility the king's position had.
it’s the sequence more so than that one move. in that position even i might be able to find that move but you have to hang the knight and queen first with no guarantee you even have a winning attack. Unless your Magnus Carlson you don’t find that, anyone under super grandmaster probably doesn’t even consider it
@@csarmii not that sequence like levy says. You really don’t have any guarantees that that moves plays out unless you’re looking really far ahead like a super grandmaster and even they can miss stuff like that.
@@ADollarMight sure, the actual sequence is a bit longer, but no, it's not that big of a deal at all. And Magnus is not considered very good at tactics (not one of his strength) so he's not a good example on who would or would not find such a move. You don't have to be anywhere near a grandmaster, let alone super grandmaster for this.
I remember sacrificing my queen to get a checkmate on my dad when I was a kid. He had a knight in the way of a checkmate with my rook and I didn't need my queen for it. Well.....didn't need the queen for the final move but she was a useful sacrifice to get him to move his knight. I knew he wouldn't resist lmao.
The queen sacrifice is actually a very elegant positional play. I’ve done moves like that before. Yes, they are gambles. I’ve lost many times doing moves like that. But when it pays off, it pays off big and your opponent never saw it coming.
@@violentcabbage9424 no, he is only if he does it consistently, with high accuracy, throughout lots of games and winning near them all. Nathan probably don't have that, so no algorithm or Levy will think he is cheating.
It sounds sort of like my general thought process. Not even related to Chess in most cases, seeing as I play only rarely and I'm a novice to boot. In other games where I am thinking strategy, sometimes even ones where I have to make very quick decisions, I often consider risky yet powerful positions because I enjoy being able to blindside an opponent, sometimes with absurd multiplayer tactics that trade 'force' - like how many people are actively able to fight a battle - with knowledge. In a team game, having a little foresight can absolutely make up for being outnumbered. Even better if a team can position themselves well and force engagements that favor them, leading to unbreakable defenses and unstoppable offenses.
I can understand cheating in tournaments bc of money and fame etc. But cheating in online games? Like wtf, ur literally playing the middleman between a player and a bot and u cheering for the bot to win. U win nothing, gain nothing and still waste ur time telling the bot what pieces I moved. Like what?
Great video and Levy is great as usual but that position you chose as an example was pretty poor in my opinion. The checks are pretty forcing and white has an aggressive looking position so those moves are obviously worth investigating and as soon as you see the checkmate pattern you’ll analyze it further to see if you can force it. Anyways great job and very nice to see chess getting a bit of the clout it deserves.
Yeah, he made an ok point and then gave a terrible example. This kind of nonsense is why you have people accusing each other of cheating all the time online. Those moves were neither engine moves, nor hard to find for a (decently skilled) human.
A lot of this needs context. For example, new accounts with a 60% to 70% win rate isn't uncommon, I had a 78% win rate for my first 150 games. This is because my elo moved slowly, while I was beating 500 - 1000 elo players easily. Once I start to face 1300 - 1600 players my win % dropped.
And that sacrifice was easy to spot... The daily puzzles are harder than that, according to you everyone who can complete a daily puzzle also must cheat, right?
That move at the end is definitely a Waitzkin move, his pawn game was pretty crazy, and he often traded down material for positioning. While not common, there are players that do play games like that.
Cheaters will often play the best engine move and if one move is +1 but the another move is also +1 or +0.9 (according to engine) often the engine move leads to a line that requires meticulous calculation and no mistakes to result in that +1 while the other move that might be slightly worse is way easier to see so when the enemy often plays these unexpectedly good moves where you think “how does he see this?” the enemy is either way better than you or cheating.
I played a game with 98% accuracy the other day I have no idea how I managed it, but I was scared I’d be banned for cheating lol (most of my other games are 75-80 accuracy)
There is no forced win unless the opponent captures the Queen. Yes it's clear that the opponent can't take the Queen immediately, but even knowing that that square is safe for now still doesn't justify leaving the Queen somewhere with so much potential danger for so little compensation, not without a lot of time on the clock.
@@d_andrews I think you are missing the main point here. Your queen was attacked. So moving it to a square where it can't be taken is what you should logically do. And if you can find a square that still attacks other pieces (in this case the knight), it even gives you tempo. The opponent can't even move the knight here, because then the rook hangs. Point is, even if your opponent spots the trap, you are winning a minor piece here. An advantage only one move away. Which shouldn't be hard to spot for higher level players.
@@Modie you're not winning a minor piece though, because you sacrificed a Knight to get to this position. The point is that you have to have calculated all this at the time of sacrificing the Knight and been confident that it's good compensation.
@@d_andrews Even if you sacrificed the knight (which was already shown in the video that it's not good to take), you win at least one pawn, your queen is out of danger, your rook has an open file AND the opponent has to deal with check (which also leads to them blocking their own rook). Kind of a better position than if you would retreat your queen. And you only need to calculate three moves ahead to see that.
I remember coming across this guys stream once. Thousands of people watching a guy play chess…..It made me so happy. They’re not melting their brains watching some pointless influencer scream his head off. They’re interested in chess!! 😮😂 Great!
@@uncoiledfish2561 haha yes that’s good, but I’m also rly suprised how anyone playing CHESS can pull in thousands of watchers, surely there are way more exiting things to be watching
The game is Eric Rosen vs SupremeMonk, it was later confirmed that Eric’s opponent had in fact cheated in the game. Here’s the link to Eric’s video of him playing against the cheater: ruclips.net/video/XqNlxdpRmp0/видео.html
To be fair, at 0:01 there is no safe square for the Queen... And you would only have tonlook 2 moves ahead. That move alone seems very reasonable to me.
My thought exactly. Finding a queen sacrifice resulting in mate in one doesn’t mean that they’re cheating. Granted, if they’re low ELO, it’s possible they could be, but I digress
It's not just Qd5. The previous knight sac makes sense ONLY IF Qd5 has been seen/calculated ahead of time. Qd5 by itself is majestic enough, but combine it with the previous moves for the whole sequence to makes sense, IT"S INSANE for a human to find it.
That knight and queen sacrifices are easier tricks than what i sometimes saw when i was young. Furhermore, that sacrifices are much easier to spot than most of chess puzzles solution that sometimes an amatuer can see!
yeah its fair easy to find. maybe not to someone rated sub 1000, but its not a great example of a computer move. (not trying to sound arrogant when i say sub 1000 btw)
@@FreezyOH of course you can. In your term and conditions for a tournament you forfeit the game if you leave the table. Maybe all these chess masters can train their bladders or even do what the astronauts do…
"no human in history has ever played a sequence of moves like that" is maybe a bit of an overstatement when talking about a queen sac that requires 3 moves of foresight xD
It's clear that the opponent can't take the Queen immediately, yes. But even knowing that that square is safe for now still doesn't justify leaving the Queen somewhere with so much potential danger for so little compensation, not without a lot of time on the clock.
When you play a lot of chess puzzles plays like the one with the queen do not seem all that strange, because you can force a king to move a certain type of way, because there simply aren't any other options. At least it does happen to me sometimes as I play a lot of puzzles.
OK, but given the board position at the beginning of the video... wouldn't the "human" player just take black's E pawn with the knight and threaten discover check and eventually mate?
Huh, that queen sacrifice board is something Levy also used as an example recently on his own channel. It's a good reference to easily show to people how bots move. Levy also recently showed a pass pawn denial move that blew my mind more than this example, but it's more obscure and not nearly as dramatic since it's pawns and not sacking queens for mates
As a reference for how easy it is, my nine year old brother who plays chess (only 500) spotted that move after only around 40 seconds of thinking. If your logical, I’m sure you would spot that
It's because you lack context, there was already multiple pieces sacrificed to reach that position with no immediate guarantee of victory - Qd5 was already analyzed and logged by the engine beforehand
Well, there are others, like making a move that doesn't make sense (in the middle game, and not immediate checkmate) until some 7 or 8 moves later. Levy gave the example of a checkmate sequence in the video ... which I can argue would not be impossible to find for someone 2000 or above ... they are fully capable of calculating 4 to 5 moves checkmate sequences when it's there.
@@danlorett2184 Well, not "really." If you've played many puzzles, you'd know where to look. Now of course that's playing Monday Morning QB, where we already know there's a solution to a problem. I'd say the knight sac isn't that jaw-dropping for 2000 and above. Again, the reason being that the king is almost out of squares and there's a possible check by the rook. It's like 4 or 5 moves checkmate. I remember going through a couple of Danya's games where the computer suggested Qd8 instead of Qe8. Something like that. A very subtle move. And nobody knew what the difference was until like 8 moves later, justifying that Queen placement. It's moves like those that are fishy. But yes, if a 1200 goes for a knight sac and then a queen sac to checkmate someone, then it's fishy for sure. But for a 2000, I think they'd at least entertain some of these crazy 4 to 5 moves ideas.
*sacrifices one or two pieces for a 3-turn play you've been planning for the past 4 turns* GothamChess: "That's an AI move right there, no doubt about it."
I would totally make that first move. I throw my Queen away all the time. Bear in mind that I play casually and am not entering professional events. But there's a certain kind of player that believes the Queen is a Game Winning/Losing piece. And if you pick up on that early enough sacrificing your Queen can lull them into a false sense of security and make them more risk prone than they would usually be.
If you're determined to choose chaos, might I recommend aggressive queen trades instead? They're much more fun than just throwing away the piece, especially when the opponent blinks and gives you free stuff.
I think that player with white was featured in Levy's or Eric rozen's video. Titled something like "Chess cheater crushes (something)" or something like that. Not compeletely sure tho.
It might be a human move, but a human couldn't play such a move in 5-8 seconds, which is typical of these cheaters. They play these powerful sacrifices and take 5 seconds to "think" about them. A human could play such a move, it's easy to say "okay if he takes it it's checkmate" but any human who wants to win the game should also think "well what else can he do" humans are resourceful. So a human player prospecting to play such a strong move, even a grandmaster, would take at the very least 30 seconds and likely more to consider lines and guarantee a positive outcome no matter what.
@@MrJsintic I searched a little bit for the video and i was wrong about the title...but it was indeed Eric Rozen's game. Here it is ruclips.net/video/XqNlxdpRmp0/видео.html
9:27 I saw a few professional matches where Magnus himself sacrificed a queen to get a checkmate. Seen it multiple times. It's not that rare of a thing. And seeing one move ahead to where sacrificing the queen will give a checkmate isn't that hard either. Especially if you had already planned to checkmate with the bishops.
I think the actual tricky move was the knight sacrifice which later down the line leads to that queen sacrifice. The difficulty is realizing that this specific line may occur when you choose to sacrifice that knight, and that if it does, you're winning due to the bishop pair. Its a lot easier to see that queen sacrifice when its on the board than vs when its in a specific line 3 moves away and recognizing its a win. But due to the editing, it kinda felt cut off and like the queen move was what was hard to see rather than the knight move knowing that the queen sacrifice a few moves down the road would be your win.
The video is oversimplified. That game was with Eric Rosen with the black pieces. The sequence of moves that led to Qd5 is what was astounding. Eric already knew he was playing a cheater.
"Not that rare a thing"? You're joking right? Check the chess databases and try to find the many queen sacs... Spoiler: You can't, because amongst the 100s of millions of games, there wont be many queen sacs leading to mates. Just because it happened in a few legendary GM games or recent super GM games, doesn't make it a "not that rare of a thing".
If my opponent found that queen sac on the board I'd be 100% sure they'd either be cheating or has solved at least one tactics exercise in their life. Perhaps several.
Everything he said is 100% true, I just wish they'd used a better example for the "sacrifice' than the Ng5+ into bishop mate. I mean that's a 2-move forced checkmate if black plays Kg8 which I would not say was insane. If instead you take the knight as fxg5 then you just get fxg5+ which forces Qf6 into a pin. No matter what that Ng5+ move is super strong. I mean it's pretty likely the dude was cheating but I wouldn't say that sacrifice was really a clear cut cheating example.
I like the video, but that queen sacrifice is really easy to see... Like casual player level. The hard to spot move was the knight sacrifice before: that feels more like IM or GM level. I'd say the most unhumanlike moves are the ones that seem completely ignorant of the main conflicts in the position: it is moves like those that actually look weird, and then, when you analyse them properly you see that that random king move was actually shutting down options, like, 3, 5 moves deep. Just not human.
Good for you. The International Master who was playing against the cheater in the game also did not see either of the queen sacrifices coming, even though it was quite a long match. It's not that easy when there isn't anyone telling you that a winning tactic exists.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks so much for having me, Wired! :)
living legend
Gotham i love you bro
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
My man 💪
Thank you for having us.
Levy is so consistent that he has started posting on other channels too.
Incredible
Your comment is funny bro👍
This one was less clickbaity though!
I am routinely impressed by his dedication to posting content and always bringing the same energy in every video.
I think Levy's video above has some major flaws in the logic presented.
Just because your opponent sacrificed all of his pieces and yet won doesn't necessarily mean they cheated... they could just be playing on 'another level'.
LOL
The most suspicious moves are not sacrificial moves, but weird positional stuff.
Like moving the queen back one space because 5 moves later it's gonna save you a tempo.
Exactly this. Plenty of examples of queen sacrifices by humans.
I saw one where the computer said to move a perfectly safe king. Made zero sense to a human that can't see 25 moved ahead.
Yeah, I felt that example was a bit too simple,.
Yeah I think he gave this example because it was simple and he was trying to cater to a mainstream audience
Agreed. This video is misleading as any good chess player would sacrifice a queen if it led to a checkmate in 2 to 3 moves. Its the niche positional ones that are like, what the?
Absolutely, you can almost instantly tell if someone is cheating by those moves. Random king move in the middle of a game that seems to achieve nothing (happens in lower elo and very high elo tho sometimes), or those weird queen/bishop one tile moves when there seems to be more forward progessing moves available.
I sacrifice my queen all the time and nobody has accused me of being a bot. Just because I lose my game, doesn't mean I'm not cheating.
Yea same here
yeah this seems very scripted. the queen sac example could have been found out by anybody over 1k
Definitely, i play chess to find opportunities to do moves like this sacrifice it's my main motivation to play finding the "impossible" moves
More accurately "improbable" moves
He's refering to sacrifices that are not very obvious. If you see gms playing engines for example the way they sacrifice pieces is very different, and the engine might do it completely out of the blue for no immediately seen advantage just because it evaluates the position as better
The example here was just very bad
@mistermiggens but you often don't see cheaters in those elo levels as much as you do in lower ones.
Sure they do cheat but it's alot more obvious
Me : " Blunders my Queen"
Levy : He sacrificed the Queen. Only a bot can come up with that move.
He also said that no human has ever made a move like the sacrifice that he showcased. This is misleading. It was a bad example.
Rest of his ideas were really informative
@@rainchopper898Pin of shame. Dude, not everyone watching this video is high-rated chess nerd, like come on, any 1k would probably see mate in 3 or 4 occasionally, it's just an example he gave to wider range public, the sacrifice which are not so obvious.
@@octobsession3061high rated chess nerd? On a chess website 1000 elo is practically still a beginner lmfao. The example sucked Levy talking out of his butt this is why he’s only good for teaching scrubs
@@rainchopper898 He said that no human has ever made that particular sequence of moves. Not any sequence resembling that one. Obviously, he knows that people make queen sacrifices sometimes.
@@rainchopper898 No, but said move is surrounded by so many other red flags.
Tbh Levy explained it very well but the example could have been chosen better
A real example would probably have been like 10 moves long and the average audience member wouldn't have been able to follow, is my thinking.
It's a decent example for low elo
@@MaxLennon the best explanation would be a endgame example when the chess ai unexplainably sacs a queen to get an extremely niche mate trap
I just don't get why black takes the queen. Like I get it's a noob but it's literally a 1 move calculation
@@resir9807 Black shouldn't take the queen, but the move is still very strong even if you don't "fall for it." Qd5 threatens the knight on c6. Move the knight and you lose the rook on a8 and you're dying on the back rank. The bishop can't defend the knight because the queen can take it if it goes to d7 and if it goes to b7 it stops defending e6. Qd5 is one of those moves that looks impossible at first glance, but once you see it is possible then it becomes crushing.
It isn't an example of a "bot move" at higher levels, since it'd be easily findable by a good player, but if played quickly at low levels it'd certainly be suspicious.
That example felt more like a normal chess puzzle than a cheater scenario, but other than that, great video.
Well the point is that is very unlikely to see a so risky sacrifice sequence (there is the knight’s one also) in let’s say 10-12 sec, maybe Magnus, Hikaru and some others super GM could but…
@@auzad3s601 no pretty much any competent player can figure out that mate pretty quickly. Humans are generally pretty good at attacking moves but it's usually the positional long termoves that they struggle more at. I think he used a bad example here
exactly, thought this was a bit weird. I feel like Levy gave a more simplified explanation for this as there probably would be moves that are definitely a lot of tactics that might actually be suspicious, but probably was a lot harder to explain in an interview than a 3-move tactic
plus I suppose he's mostly explaining cheaters at a low elo, probably
@@shtuffsgood example explained poorly. the main point is that the opponent doesnt have to recapture, and u seemingly gain nothing by keeping ur queen in danger only defended by a flimsy tactic
Time control is very important here. Online chess, not classical. Carlsen said that he only need to get the hint when to look up for something to win majority of his games, so he would prob took his time and find this ez when someone said: now, but during the regular online which is usually blitz game, not really a chance to even search for something that crazy.
I just love how if you're called a bot in literally any other game, it means you're really bad.
But in chess, it means you're amazing
in what games does it mean you're bad?
@@arthurb6882 For example, Minecraft, CoD, Fortnite, that stuff.
@@arthurb6882 league of legends, dota, and other mmos, you're being called bad if you are called a bot.
@Mark Berenger That’s the point…
Because in these game developers dont want to put a perfect bot in, AI in these games are designed to train players to be ready for iron or bronze gameplay. If you take a look at FIFA for example, the hardest difficulty (UT Ultimate) is like top 0.5% between players. Even in Dota, Open AI Five beat OG 2-0 after OG won back to back International
As an AI, I can affirm his statements are indeed solid.
Beeeeeep bop bleep boop beep
@SpeedyProduction Why'd you make 5 comments xd
Like seriously lads, he is an AI
Don't anthropomorphize the robots - they hate when you do that.
I like chat bots
Levy has really come so far, I'm really proud of him.
Levy is just such a great chess player, both professionally and on stream and video. Congrats for getting onto wired!
Also a great chess explainer. Watched one of his videos randomly and it was very entertaining and informative. I know basically just a little more than the basics about chess and his video had me hooked.
great chess player? either you're patronizing af or I read dat wrong
Hes not a Grandmaster and he will never be one per his own admission. There are thousands of grandmasters
Yea I highly recommend checking him out if you haven't already!
Ikr
Levy in this video: "sacrificing pieces is something a human would never do; those moves are very bot-like"
Levy on his main channel: THE ROOOOOOOOK
Underrated 😂
now 3 ;D
NOW 4!
now 5 ?
@@ItzOndra Up to that point, it only had one actual response. Your copy/paste of other people's comment-idea added nothing, except for a slew of other meaningless comments, and this one calling it out. Thanks for contributing to the death of intelligent discourse.
I'm a chess noob, but it looks to me like Wired cut the recording of Levy's computer move analysis into random confusing bits and pieces for dramatic effect because they don't trust their viewers to concentrate and stay attentive for more than 20 seconds.
If you'd like to see a video where Levy had the chance to explain in more detail, check out any of his chess cheating videos (try searching for "Gothamchess cheaters"). In those videos, he breaks down the games in funny but educational ways.
@@mysticseven6578 bro he obviously knows that he referred to him by his first name
@@Trippze Fair point! I was more talking to new viewers, but apologies to Olaf if I came off as condescending.
@@mysticseven6578 Don't apologize, that other guy is just being a jackass. There was no reason for him to say that. And thanks for the recommendation.
They think everyone has zoomer attention span
Someone asked Kasparov about this and I found his answer very interesting-he said that at the grandmaster level, all a cheater needs to know is that they have a winning move. This is a signal that only has to be done once-making it incredibly hard to detect-because at grandmaster level it only takes 1 major mistake or oversight to lose the game entirely.
Nakamura basically said the same thing in his podcast ep with Lex Fridman. Not even winning move but just a more advantageous move- just a signal so he will spend more time and find it. The explanation is fine, but the example given is for the non-players, for sure.
@@AllTheArtsy I'll take it even a step further. Nevermind moves, simply knowing their entire position is better is enough for GMs like Hikaru.
Maybe multiple top players have said similar things. I remember seeing a video where Vishy Anand explained that not long after Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and computers became indisputably stronger than humans, he realised cheating was now almost impossible to detect, as he only needed to be told once in a game which critical position to be careful or spend more time on, and he'd significantly raise his winning percentage. He doesn't need to be told the moves. All the top GMs are already looking at top moves suggested by engines most of the time. But it is not always easy to evaluate which move is slightly better, and in which positions, there may be one move that is much better than others which isn't obvious. Just telling the super-GM there is something in a position once in the game, and that's all the assistance they need to become much stronger players.
It’s interesting that when Gary Kasparov played Deep Blue, he thought IBM were cheating for the opposite reason… the computer suddenly changed its personality where it wouldn’t take predictable risks and cautiousness is a very human emotion.
Gary tried to bait the computer but for some reason the computer wouldn’t take his piece. Imagine doing a move like the one in this video, when white goes to sacrifice their Queen and the black pawn just ignores it. He said it was the only computer (at the time) that wouldn’t take a high value piece when it could.
Unless you can see literally 2 moves ahead and go, wel gee if i take the queen, I'm moving my pawn out of the way of that bishop, dun dun. Although, the queen being there can also take and then you have check again.
@@PBMS123 He described early computers as materialistic rather than thinking ahead . If they could take a high value piece, now, then they would. He also played a few games against the computer (maybe best of 5) and said the computers playing style or personality suddenly changed.
If you haven’t seen it already, I highly recommend watching the documentary, I think it’s called “Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine”
@@notmenotme614 Early computers would overevaluate material after a long sequence. However, if they spot checkmate in a couple of moves after potentially taking a piece they just won't take.
This is not what happened in the Deep Blue match. Kasparov didn't bait the computer to take one of his pieces. There were two instances in the second match Kasparov played against Deep Blue that Kasparov found suspicious. In the first instance, Deep Blue avoided a variation that would have allowed it to win two pawns. It wasn't the best variation but engines back then didn't have a very good evaluation system and valued material gains more highly than other factors because material is easy to calculate.
The second and more famous instance was in the last game of the match. Kasparov played a dubious opening with the black pieces because he thought that Deep Blue wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate it. The opening was dubious because there was a well-known knight sacrifice for white that refuted the line. Engines back then didn't go for sacrifices unless they would immediately lead to a win so Kasparov was sure that Deep Blue wouldn't go for it. But it did and Kasparov lost the game. To this day Kasparov claims that this move was not played by Deep Blue but that a human chess player made the move. After all, the knight sacrifice was well-known among high-level chess players. However, the Deep Blue team claimed that they had entered this exact line into the opening book of Deep Blue before the game. That would be a huge coincidence but who knows.
@@hansmahr8627 and they did not even allow him a rematch...
0:09 does make some sense because it’s checkmate in only 2, however a human would probably sac the bishop instead of queen but I think it’s because psychologically an opponent is way more likely to take a queen than bishop
I don’t think it was even than crazy of an idea. It’s not hard to spot that move.
Maybe the engine getting him to the position to be able to do this is what was fishy? Idk.
@@Zombie_MB it’s not but maybe the queen sac is not human, a human would sac the bishop
@@ultimatestuff7111 why? the queen would have more power if the sacrifice didn't go through and easily take 3 pieces while also dogging on the king.
@@TaterzzBasically: The queen sacrifice is human, but the Knight sacrifice that led to this is unhuman
I think most players over 1k elo are spotting a queen or bishop sacrifice mate
That was literally the most tame queen "sacrifice" ever. A human would absolutely play that move.
they would have to be decent to find it still but yeah, its a bad example
Anyone who has messed around for 30mins in lichess puzzles would be able to find that mate in 2 easy.
@@paolosworld99 It's not a mate in 2. Black doesn't have to capture the queen.
@@anonymously94 If black doesn't capture the queen, there's another followup move white can make that's instant checkmate. If white does other things to try to postpone or get out of that checkmate, their position suffers or they lose material.
@@taleladar There is no immediate mate for white if black doesn't capture the queen, unless black makes a blunder.
To be honest, that Qd5 at the beginning is so majestic and not suspicious at all, the move itself does not mean cheating. The combination to get to that position though, may indicate otherwise
In combination with the knight sacrifice, it was a very weird move. On its own it would’ve been fine.
@@ranDOm9431The knight sacrifice makes perfect sense to me: It keeps pressure on the black king. Whenever you can control your opponent's king you should.
@@bramvanduijn8086 afther the black King moves, both queen and knight are under attack. Qd5 move should have been calculated ahead of time for the knight sac to make sense. It's not just Qd5 or the knight sac, but the combination that leads to it's insane difficuty for a human
Levy is an inspiration, great episode!
Levy is an inspiration, great episode!
RATIO
Levy is an inspiration, great episode!
Levy is an inspiration, great episode!
Levy is an inspiration, great episode!
The first mate he used is actually a pretty common mating pattern, the sacrifice is nice but the double bishop mate is a bodens mate and ive practiced it a lot on lichess, i could totes see a player spotting that move
yeah the queen sacrifice wasn't super hard to find, it was more the fact that he had to sac his knight to even get to that point
Yeah like it was a nice sequence and not the easiest to find, but it's not like an unsolvable puzzle. If you post that position on r/chess I bet a lot of people would figure it out. Strange to use that particular example
Sacrificing the knight was completely intuitive, it opens up a completely devastating f-file on a vulnerable king with tempo.@@Buf037
totes? is the full word too much time? you just typed an essay and ended on a strange made up word just wondering?
@@properp6922 🤓
That position was probably not the best example, but still understandable by every level of player. Nice job!
I thought the same those moves are definately not beyond levys capabilities
Paul Morphy would play like that for even less compensation, lol
I feel like they edited it weird. even as a relative beginner, I've done puzzles that have used similar ideas so I think it's very likely even intermediate players would spot it
Yeah, I'd be pretty uncomfortable playing anywhere that would deem me a cheater for making such moves. Those moves seem well within what even like an 1800-rated player could do, especially in slower time controls.
I'm going through a tactics trainer intended for players around 1600 and some of the puzzles are not much easier than that. Of course, when you tell someone there is something to find like in a puzzle, it's easier than finding the same thing out of the blue in a real game.
agreed! I don't think I would have found it, but it didn't look that crazy.
so kind of levy to bring attention to smaller channels, what a cool dude
smaller?
definitely not smaller
yeah, how kind of him! maybe wired will be as big as levy some day
@@edpsussyfortniteamogus8373 come back once you've learned what sarcasm is. Enjoy kindergarten!
@@porygon-z8270 be quiet dawg, reading text on a screen doesn’t as easily convey emotions or even sarcasm as easy as hearing it in person.
Hikaru mentioned that you can cheat by simply relating a single beep.
Beep means there's an important move to pay attention. If you know a move exists, you try hard to find it.
No beep means the moves are not hard to find. You don't lose time.
This is actually right. When you are solving a chess puzzles you try hard to spot the tactic but in normal games, most moves look simple and mundane.
One beep for important defensive move, two beeps important offensive move, three beeps important move which is defensive but is also offensive. How about that?
Then the thing malfunctions and there’s never a beep
Coughing works too.
@@rdr6269 Omg! You ppl now will make chess match happen in an enclosed cell.
‘A human would never play that move’
Me who makes random moves: you have yet to reach my level
The first example is tragically bad imo
I guess its fine not to give a new player that credit but the King is very obviously vulnerable and you only need to think 1 move ahead to conclude Queen sacrifice
It's an exaggerated example that explains his point pretty well IMO.
He then says that the bot does that but worse and pretty much at every turn.
It may have been edited poorly by Wired (which they are known to do). Its possible his example was more in depth and they only kept the last part.
@@Manakyn Yes, he talked about a sequence of moves, and Wired probably showed only the end.
Yeah I’m almost sure they simplified it. Most likely gotham explained a longer sequence and they just showed the end, or he had a different example and wired vetoed it because it was too confusing. This is meant to be for people who don’t play chess so the example couldn’t be too complicated
I think he or Eric Rosen has a video explaining that position and it is actually a very deep move because accepting the queen results in checkmate, but declining the queen isn't possible either without losing. Thing is, in that position you can decline the sacrifice in a variety of ways, and you have to find refutations for all of them. Not only you'd have to calculate a large number of possible lines but you would also have to have the confidence that you aren't wrong in any of them
I would never think that gotham chess would get on wired
I love how Levy can be both serious and funny. Especially at GTE🤣
what's GTE?
@@mrosskne GeT bitchEs
@@mrosskne Guess The Elo
Or how to lose at chess😂
this guy looks racist af no cap
I had a great game recently, I won with a dubious checkmate. I used the computer analysis to see what the computer thought of my game. I had a 66% accuracy lol
May I ask why you shared this information with us, and do you consider it to be a rather high, or low accuracy?
@@ComradeChams since then I had a 93% and a 96% once
@@ComradeChamslate comment but the context is: sometimes you end a game feeling that you played great, then you look at the computer analysis afterwards and realize you made a bunch of mistakes. In terms of accuracy percentage, it really depends on the game (disparity between players, if someone makes a significant blunder, opening knowledge, etc) but being in the 60% range is not good
@@BarSalad its depends, I can score about 80+ accuracy against 1200s and win most games, but always score around 60~ against 1800s and lost most games. So you can't decide your play is good or bad by the accuracy alone.
@@mghtutookhaung5449 that’s already covered in my comment
That queen gambit is really straight forward. It's mate in 2. I get that there are other queen sacs that only a computer would see, but I would expect anyone as good as Levy to see that particular example.
Keep in mind that most of the people watching this channel aren't chess players. You can't really expect them to understand why the actual moves that GMs consider 'bot moves' are even good at all.
that was my first thought too, but it's also contingent on Ng5+ being found first. It's a tough find but not unreasonable
Definitely a believable human move, but real bot moves sac the queen the uncork some ten move combo that a general audience wouldn’t be able to follow lol. Also I’d say it depends on rating. A 500 finding a queen sac for mate in 2 is sus.
Im pretty sure that example was more about finding that knight sac. You know now that it works, but you dont normally simply even consider and calculate a move like that because moving a knight under attack when your own queen is already under one is very counter intuitive.
@@LauriKarjanlahti I've done it before but I'm a very aggressive player. I think a lot of the moves were edited out as this example is pretty bad at best.
"If it can go into your shoe, it can go to other places" - Levy Rozman, 2022
Levy: No human in history has ever played a sequence of moves like that.
Mikhail Tal: Am I a joke to you?
9:27
Bruh
or literally anyone who's over like 1700
Since when is Tal human?
Yeah that queen sac was mate in 1 how is that a bot move
levy has really become the go-to guy for all chess content catered to the general masses. being a long time chess fan myself, i never really liked levy's videos, but i respect the hustle, and him making it to the top.
He definetly deserves this as well, pretty charismstic, a but controversial but entertaining
@@brushtooth6636 how is he controversial? Jusk askin started watching him just a few months ago
he's ovbiously cheaper and less busy than the serious players.
@@Nomazzz he’s not controversial at all, i have no idea what these people are saying
@@falc0n12 hahah that was my first reaction too
3:33 oh yes, The Vibrating Device. Yes, in the shoe, where else? Under armpit... oh
If someone moves his queen like that in a game your first thought would be "wtf is this??? Is it just a bait or am I dead already"
When someone does this kind of move you know you are in a problem not because you think the enemy is cheating, but because you know your opponent had to have a reason to do this "idiotic " move
then just sacrifice your queen and hope they’re scared to take it lmao (they always take it hence why it works)
@@mhkk1491 I don't think you need to be a grandmaster to suspect a bait vs a blander.
It depends on how much time is left (is he in a rush?), The playstyle your op had till that point, and how obvious it is.
In this example the fact the queen can die is super obvious, so unless it was a missclick or op nearly put of time, it is probably a bait
Unless you're 600 like me
The example is literally just an oversimplified version of it for the audience. This is not actually a video for chess pros, dude. The real life example is them giving up their queen for a checkmate 4 or 5 moves away which not even most grandmasters can do.
@Richard L Probably just wired editing away the rest of the footage leaving only that single move for the initial example.
The example that was chosen doesn't make too much sense for experienced players is because that position is meant for beginners to get the general ideas of bots using weird moves to cheat. Sacrificing a Queen is way more counter intuitive for a beginner than maybe a weird positional move.
This a thing that also popped into my mind whilst seeing the video. Thanks for pointing it out!
Yes, this is a great point
0:22 personally i would of seen that. Am i a ROBOT?!?!
Can you be sure you're not?
A robot would have a better grasp of punctuation and capitalization. So no.
More people need to accept the notion of losing to improve and winning to know you did something right.
When I lose, the game was so bad that I don't want to look at the analysis. When I win, I'm more likely to analyze it because I can see what I did wrong and feel better about still winning.
3:48 he's barely holding his laugh 😂
With all due respect, elite players sacrifice their Queens for victory all the time. I agree with everything else you said but in that example it was only three moves. You admitted that Grandmasters regularly think that far ahead. Especially because in that scenario the other person playing would definitely take the bait 9/ 10 times.
Okay Dunning-Kruger
@@ImGonnaOilYouUp I'm very smarty pants 🤓 thanks though simple one.
@@blaze556922 In that case I don't feel what is mostly suspicious is the last queen move, but the whole sequence. Although I agree that while that move is unfindable 29 days a month for even high level common players, sequences like that, and honestly even more impressive ones, have been played throughout chess history by humans.
Yeah, in that sequence looked like what Tal would play
@@ImGonnaOilYouUp that’s not Dunning-Kruger, an effect that has been ironically misused. I think Levy, while doing a great job explaining, could have explained this better. Grandmasters DO sacrifice. They also do things that look, to men as a bad chess player, just as crazy.
9:32 everyone who ever found a brilliant move: 💀
The opening example feels a bit weird, I think any slightly experienced player would see that the queen to D5 move is safe because an attempt to take the queen results in immediate checkmate, and an experienced opponent would see that taking the queen results in checkmate as well.The full version of it later does however feel completely absurd.
Yeah agreed, that Queen move is pretty normal high level stuff, but that knight play? Not so much…
I don't think the editor knows much about chess, hence the weird opening.
Omg I couldn’t be more proud of Levy, he’s come so far 🥺
gotham was once despised by a whole enraged nation and even received death threats just because he accused his opponent is cheating. turned out the opponent was in fact cheating lol. :))
dewa kipas
Out of the loop here - what's the story here?
@@shingofan GothamChess accused an Indonesian player (Dewa_Kipas) for cheating and then his account is blocked, this enraged a lot of people in the country. Long story short, GothamChess was right. You should look it up it's an interesting story how an entire country was fooled and start sending death threat over a small thing
@@derryaryasaputra2629 obviously accusing a person of a certain race of cheating meant the accuser is a racist! /s
The opposite happened to me.... Kingscrusher accused me of cheating on ICC and I got banned and received death threats.... but my account was reinstated after revealing my identity....
I made a rap song about him, but he had my public song removed, this one is unlisted ruclips.net/video/uw3woxUbIBE/видео.html
The only real give away was sacrificing the queen instead of the bishop
The first example was actually pretty easy to spot, you’re queen is being attacked so you’re looking for a square to escape to and naturally you would find d5 as the best move.
It’s simplified to appeal and make sense to a broader audience. Someone like me who doesn’t know about more in-depth chess tactics won’t be able to follow along, but with a simple example like that, which is humanly possible to find, it makes more sense and helps get the point across
This is something I for example look out for in every game cuz forced sequences initiated by sacrifice are so fun :P also this is a 2 move sequence so not too bad - king moves are more sus ^^
Had to see Ng5 first tho
@@pypeapple thank you for explaining this. I thought no one else realized that 😭
@@chessandmathguy Ng5 is the only move that keeps any advantage for white at all. Not hard to see at all.
0:54 3 huge questions
1. why does a treadmill have chess
2. why does it's chess contain a GM level AI
3. where can I get one
1. To incentivize the user while they're doing something incredibly monotonous...
2. Because why not? xD
3. Guess you could ask at the gym that Levy was talking about... Sadly, i don't know the details, but maybe they're somewhere on the internet.
1. Why not, I tried it at my local gym
2. Why not
3. IDk on the internet
I can definitely see a human playing the first move. It looks ridiculous at first, but when you look closely it's really not all that bizzare. It leads to a pretty obvious checkmate if taken (as demonstrated) and puts pressure on the knight at b6. The only recourse black has is to sacrafice bishop which completely destroys any defensibility the king's position had.
Me: plays e5
Levy: a human would never play that
It would be weird seeing it live at first, but I don’t feel 8:58 is really a sign of cheating, since checkmate is literally only in one move after
Wired edits the videos weird, it was probably a much more in depth explaination.
it’s the sequence more so than that one move. in that position even i might be able to find that move but you have to hang the knight and queen first with no guarantee you even have a winning attack. Unless your Magnus Carlson you don’t find that, anyone under super grandmaster probably doesn’t even consider it
@@ADollarMight that's not true at all. A 2000 player with good tactics skills will find sequences like that.
@@csarmii not that sequence like levy says. You really don’t have any guarantees that that moves plays out unless you’re looking really far ahead like a super grandmaster and even they can miss stuff like that.
@@ADollarMight sure, the actual sequence is a bit longer, but no, it's not that big of a deal at all. And Magnus is not considered very good at tactics (not one of his strength) so he's not a good example on who would or would not find such a move. You don't have to be anywhere near a grandmaster, let alone super grandmaster for this.
I remember sacrificing my queen to get a checkmate on my dad when I was a kid. He had a knight in the way of a checkmate with my rook and I didn't need my queen for it. Well.....didn't need the queen for the final move but she was a useful sacrifice to get him to move his knight. I knew he wouldn't resist lmao.
4:33 this has to be the dumbest chess stockfootage ever. Look at it. LOOK AT IT. WHAT ARE THEY EVEN DOING.
😂😂😂
That first move was a bad example. That was easy to spot
in a 3 min blitz game its not. i'm 2400 trust me. and even ng5+ sequence is highly suspect
The queen sacrifice is actually a very elegant positional play. I’ve done moves like that before. Yes, they are gambles. I’ve lost many times doing moves like that. But when it pays off, it pays off big and your opponent never saw it coming.
@@violentcabbage9424 no, he is only if he does it consistently, with high accuracy, throughout lots of games and winning near them all. Nathan probably don't have that, so no algorithm or Levy will think he is cheating.
@Violent Cabbage levy was wrong before and this video is good example of it.
@@violentcabbage9424 i saw that and like what. A human will sacrifice a Queen 😆
Agreed, I got his point but it was not the greatest example.
It sounds sort of like my general thought process. Not even related to Chess in most cases, seeing as I play only rarely and I'm a novice to boot. In other games where I am thinking strategy, sometimes even ones where I have to make very quick decisions, I often consider risky yet powerful positions because I enjoy being able to blindside an opponent, sometimes with absurd multiplayer tactics that trade 'force' - like how many people are actively able to fight a battle - with knowledge. In a team game, having a little foresight can absolutely make up for being outnumbered. Even better if a team can position themselves well and force engagements that favor them, leading to unbreakable defenses and unstoppable offenses.
"I would consider a non human move something that breaks principles of chess entirely."
100 rated players: "Am I a bot...?"
"No Human In History Has Ever Played A Sequence Of Moves Like That" Mikhail Tal- Hold My Insane Queen Sacrifices
I can understand cheating in tournaments bc of money and fame etc.
But cheating in online games? Like wtf, ur literally playing the middleman between a player and a bot and u cheering for the bot to win. U win nothing, gain nothing and still waste ur time telling the bot what pieces I moved. Like what?
9:27 I wouldn’t say no human. Hikarus immortal game had multiple queen sacrifices. Granted it’s one of his best games for a reason.
Queen to D5 is actually a BRILLIANT move. It's Mate in 4.
0:20 - Ooops. I should have just waited.
Yes, that's why Levy said it was a "non-human" move. Although, to be honest, that move is very human.
@@thedayofnewage That sacrifice will win the game - a reasonably good player (~1200ELO) will see and play that. Turned the video off after that.
@@tth-2507 If you watched the video, you'd see he wasn't just commenting on the queen's move but also on the moves leading up to that sacrifice
@@patrickdervan3444 Then the intro of the video is cut very badly - further strengthening my believe that the video is not worth watching.
Great video and Levy is great as usual but that position you chose as an example was pretty poor in my opinion. The checks are pretty forcing and white has an aggressive looking position so those moves are obviously worth investigating and as soon as you see the checkmate pattern you’ll analyze it further to see if you can force it. Anyways great job and very nice to see chess getting a bit of the clout it deserves.
Yeah, he made an ok point and then gave a terrible example. This kind of nonsense is why you have people accusing each other of cheating all the time online. Those moves were neither engine moves, nor hard to find for a (decently skilled) human.
A lot of this needs context. For example, new accounts with a 60% to 70% win rate isn't uncommon, I had a 78% win rate for my first 150 games. This is because my elo moved slowly, while I was beating 500 - 1000 elo players easily. Once I start to face 1300 - 1600 players my win % dropped.
And that sacrifice was easy to spot... The daily puzzles are harder than that, according to you everyone who can complete a daily puzzle also must cheat, right?
8:02
Well I guess I am a Bot.
I just sacrificed The King to save a pawn.
💀
That move at the end is definitely a Waitzkin move, his pawn game was pretty crazy, and he often traded down material for positioning. While not common, there are players that do play games like that.
The example was too simplified, probably to make it easier to understand
@@tominieminen66he said "no human in history has ever played a sequence of moves like that. "😅
Cheaters will often play the best engine move and if one move is +1 but the another move is also +1 or +0.9 (according to engine) often the engine move leads to a line that requires meticulous calculation and no mistakes to result in that +1 while the other move that might be slightly worse is way easier to see so when the enemy often plays these unexpectedly good moves where you think “how does he see this?” the enemy is either way better than you or cheating.
The funny thing is they think it hides the fact there cheating. It’s like playing a couple bad moves then destroying them a few moves later
We call them "opponents" my guy 😬
I played a game with 98% accuracy the other day I have no idea how I managed it, but I was scared I’d be banned for cheating lol (most of my other games are 75-80 accuracy)
4:04 Ayo bout to head to my chess tournament with vibrating beads up my a-
Me, at 8:26: Hm. Queen to C1 makes the most sense to me.
Him, at 8:30: That exact move.
Me: Yay, I'm a human!
9:26
I'm not sure that hikaru, Magnus or other chess GM can't see a queen sac leading to a forced win 5 moves ahead.
There is no forced win unless the opponent captures the Queen. Yes it's clear that the opponent can't take the Queen immediately, but even knowing that that square is safe for now still doesn't justify leaving the Queen somewhere with so much potential danger for so little compensation, not without a lot of time on the clock.
I sent that example to a friend who's 2200 FIDE and he found the win in 2 minutes. Terrible "proof" of cheating, in my opinion.
@@d_andrews
I think you are missing the main point here. Your queen was attacked. So moving it to a square where it can't be taken is what you should logically do. And if you can find a square that still attacks other pieces (in this case the knight), it even gives you tempo. The opponent can't even move the knight here, because then the rook hangs. Point is, even if your opponent spots the trap, you are winning a minor piece here. An advantage only one move away. Which shouldn't be hard to spot for higher level players.
@@Modie you're not winning a minor piece though, because you sacrificed a Knight to get to this position. The point is that you have to have calculated all this at the time of sacrificing the Knight and been confident that it's good compensation.
@@d_andrews
Even if you sacrificed the knight (which was already shown in the video that it's not good to take), you win at least one pawn, your queen is out of danger, your rook has an open file AND the opponent has to deal with check (which also leads to them blocking their own rook). Kind of a better position than if you would retreat your queen. And you only need to calculate three moves ahead to see that.
Mikhail Tal: I didn't know I was a cheater my entire career.
I love how people take chess so seriously, motivates me to play it more and learn more about it
I feel the same way about Snooker.
@@themeerofkats8908 oh I love Snooker, I didn’t need any motivation
@@nickevershedmusic8927 Yeah. I enjoy putting it on TV when it's there. People think it's borin.
I remember coming across this guys stream once. Thousands of people watching a guy play chess…..It made me so happy. They’re not melting their brains watching some pointless influencer scream his head off. They’re interested in chess!! 😮😂 Great!
@@uncoiledfish2561 haha yes that’s good, but I’m also rly suprised how anyone playing CHESS can pull in thousands of watchers, surely there are way more exiting things to be watching
The game is Eric Rosen vs SupremeMonk, it was later confirmed that Eric’s opponent had in fact cheated in the game. Here’s the link to Eric’s video of him playing against the cheater: ruclips.net/video/XqNlxdpRmp0/видео.html
I was thinking the same thing!
Didn't Levy feature this game in a queen sac compilation video ?
Thank you.
To be fair, at 0:01 there is no safe square for the Queen...
And you would only have tonlook 2 moves ahead.
That move alone seems very reasonable to me.
My thought exactly. Finding a queen sacrifice resulting in mate in one doesn’t mean that they’re cheating. Granted, if they’re low ELO, it’s possible they could be, but I digress
It's not just Qd5. The previous knight sac makes sense ONLY IF Qd5 has been seen/calculated ahead of time.
Qd5 by itself is majestic enough, but combine it with the previous moves for the whole sequence to makes sense, IT"S INSANE for a human to find it.
Congrats to Levy on being featured on such a big channel!
Levi rozman needs to make more exposing cheaters videos
who's levi?
@@JustAPokemonCommentingOnVideos if you are not joking he is Gotham chess, the professional in the video
@@JustAPokemonCommentingOnVideos imagine calling gotham levy
@@stepstar865 nobody calls levy gotham
@@TheCagedK i really couldnt have said imagine calling levy levy so
That knight and queen sacrifices are easier tricks than what i sometimes saw when i was young. Furhermore, that sacrifices are much easier to spot than most of chess puzzles solution that sometimes an amatuer can see!
0:00 "A human would never see a three move checkmate"
Shh he's trying to fool The AI overlord on the internet. 🤣
"Mate in 2" said no human ever.
- Gotham
You missed the part where the checkmate being shown WASN'T forced.
Honestly the example computer move here seems well within the realm of a good chess player to find.
yeah its fair easy to find. maybe not to someone rated sub 1000, but its not a great example of a computer move.
(not trying to sound arrogant when i say sub 1000 btw)
This levy guy knows a lot about chess; he should make a yt channel
Hes making millions off of yt dont skrry
"I once lost to a treadmill at a hotel"
I just gotta ask why does a treadmill have a chess engine
Love how it’s okay to go to the bathroom multiple times, without suspicion, at a chess tournament but my previous jobs shame and scold me
@@FreezyOH of course you can. In your term and conditions for a tournament you forfeit the game if you leave the table. Maybe all these chess masters can train their bladders or even do what the astronauts do…
AYO LEVY ON WIRED?! LETS GOO
"no human in history has ever played a sequence of moves like that" is maybe a bit of an overstatement when talking about a queen sac that requires 3 moves of foresight xD
It's clear that the opponent can't take the Queen immediately, yes. But even knowing that that square is safe for now still doesn't justify leaving the Queen somewhere with so much potential danger for so little compensation, not without a lot of time on the clock.
When you play a lot of chess puzzles plays like the one with the queen do not seem all that strange, because you can force a king to move a certain type of way, because there simply aren't any other options. At least it does happen to me sometimes as I play a lot of puzzles.
OK, but given the board position at the beginning of the video... wouldn't the "human" player just take black's E pawn with the knight and threaten discover check and eventually mate?
Huh, that queen sacrifice board is something Levy also used as an example recently on his own channel. It's a good reference to easily show to people how bots move. Levy also recently showed a pass pawn denial move that blew my mind more than this example, but it's more obscure and not nearly as dramatic since it's pawns and not sacking queens for mates
The queen sacrifice isn’t even a bot move. It’s literally a one move sacrifice which leads to checkmate
As a reference for how easy it is, my nine year old brother who plays chess (only 500) spotted that move after only around 40 seconds of thinking. If your logical, I’m sure you would spot that
It's a bad example though. A good player would definitely spot Ng5 (it's basically the only move), and then Qd5 is easy to find as a follow-up.
The "bot move" example couldn't be worse.
It's because you lack context, there was already multiple pieces sacrificed to reach that position with no immediate guarantee of victory - Qd5 was already analyzed and logged by the engine beforehand
It might have been bad editing here with the editors not understanding chess, I did notice it was a bit weird and jumpy😊
Whoops that smile looks really passive aggressive it was a type lol
The knight sacrifice came first. Getting equal pieces required planning on two sacrifices with equal pieces being the most likely outcome.
ya the 2 moves are possible, but the sequence before was bot-like
Sacrificing the queen to get a checkmate seems like a clever trap rather than a bot move.
3:53 wonder how Maxim Dlugy knew all the details of how one would cheat hahah
Bruh the first move is for sure humanly possible 😂
Easy queen sac, 1200 move for sure
@@Spaxcore I'm 100 and I saw it instantly
Yes, it is a move advanced players can probably play, but this video is for a general audience.
@@JimmyBoosterCrate it's really not an advanced move though. I would say anyone with a few months of practice could find this.
@@Spaxcore Read his comment again dumbass, he said it's for the general audience
Well, there are others, like making a move that doesn't make sense (in the middle game, and not immediate checkmate) until some 7 or 8 moves later. Levy gave the example of a checkmate sequence in the video ... which I can argue would not be impossible to find for someone 2000 or above ... they are fully capable of calculating 4 to 5 moves checkmate sequences when it's there.
It's not the queen sac that makes it a bot move. It's the knight sac INTO the queen sac. No humans are making that knight sac ever.
@@danlorett2184 Well, not "really." If you've played many puzzles, you'd know where to look. Now of course that's playing Monday Morning QB, where we already know there's a solution to a problem.
I'd say the knight sac isn't that jaw-dropping for 2000 and above. Again, the reason being that the king is almost out of squares and there's a possible check by the rook. It's like 4 or 5 moves checkmate.
I remember going through a couple of Danya's games where the computer suggested Qd8 instead of Qe8. Something like that. A very subtle move. And nobody knew what the difference was until like 8 moves later, justifying that Queen placement. It's moves like those that are fishy.
But yes, if a 1200 goes for a knight sac and then a queen sac to checkmate someone, then it's fishy for sure. But for a 2000, I think they'd at least entertain some of these crazy 4 to 5 moves ideas.
*sacrifices one or two pieces for a 3-turn play you've been planning for the past 4 turns*
GothamChess: "That's an AI move right there, no doubt about it."
I would totally make that first move.
I throw my Queen away all the time.
Bear in mind that I play casually and am not entering professional events.
But there's a certain kind of player that believes the Queen is a Game Winning/Losing piece.
And if you pick up on that early enough sacrificing your Queen can lull them into a false sense of security and make them more risk prone than they would usually be.
If you're determined to choose chaos, might I recommend aggressive queen trades instead? They're much more fun than just throwing away the piece, especially when the opponent blinks and gives you free stuff.
Losing the queen without compensation is usually game ending
When someone sacrificing quenn for nothing or exchange for a pawn you might think first there is something or it was just a blunder.
The queen move is completely human it leads to a checkmate in 2 moves
I think that player with white was featured in Levy's or Eric rozen's video. Titled something like "Chess cheater crushes (something)" or something like that. Not compeletely sure tho.
It might be a human move, but a human couldn't play such a move in 5-8 seconds, which is typical of these cheaters. They play these powerful sacrifices and take 5 seconds to "think" about them. A human could play such a move, it's easy to say "okay if he takes it it's checkmate" but any human who wants to win the game should also think "well what else can he do" humans are resourceful. So a human player prospecting to play such a strong move, even a grandmaster, would take at the very least 30 seconds and likely more to consider lines and guarantee a positive outcome no matter what.
@@MrJsintic I searched a little bit for the video and i was wrong about the title...but it was indeed Eric Rozen's game. Here it is ruclips.net/video/XqNlxdpRmp0/видео.html
It was edited out of context, in the end they show the full sequence is four moves to checkmate and requires two sacrifices.
@@MrJsintic No, even a
0:12 Affirmative, each time I play against bots, both queens die before the tenth turn
9:27 I saw a few professional matches where Magnus himself sacrificed a queen to get a checkmate. Seen it multiple times. It's not that rare of a thing. And seeing one move ahead to where sacrificing the queen will give a checkmate isn't that hard either. Especially if you had already planned to checkmate with the bishops.
I think the actual tricky move was the knight sacrifice which later down the line leads to that queen sacrifice. The difficulty is realizing that this specific line may occur when you choose to sacrifice that knight, and that if it does, you're winning due to the bishop pair. Its a lot easier to see that queen sacrifice when its on the board than vs when its in a specific line 3 moves away and recognizing its a win.
But due to the editing, it kinda felt cut off and like the queen move was what was hard to see rather than the knight move knowing that the queen sacrifice a few moves down the road would be your win.
you failed the assignment
You really think he doesn't know that you people miss the whole point lol
The video is oversimplified. That game was with Eric Rosen with the black pieces. The sequence of moves that led to Qd5 is what was astounding. Eric already knew he was playing a cheater.
"Not that rare a thing"? You're joking right? Check the chess databases and try to find the many queen sacs...
Spoiler: You can't, because amongst the 100s of millions of games, there wont be many queen sacs leading to mates. Just because it happened in a few legendary GM games or recent super GM games, doesn't make it a "not that rare of a thing".
That very first move at the start of the video didn't seem crazy. He just baited checkmate with a queen. 2 moves, not hard to see
8:14 “The two best grandmasters in the world: Hikaru Nakamura and Hikaru Nakamura” 😆
He never said the two best grandmasters, he just said the best grandmasters,
Levy was holding the urge to scream THE QUEEN
If my opponent found that queen sac on the board I'd be 100% sure they'd either be cheating or has solved at least one tactics exercise in their life. Perhaps several.
XDDD that's a good way to put it.
After thinking for about 25 minutes I’d also come to this conclusion
I was waiting for some super circumvoluted scheme where king is going all the way down to a forced mat in 8. Desapointed/10
At least one XD
Everything he said is 100% true, I just wish they'd used a better example for the "sacrifice' than the Ng5+ into bishop mate. I mean that's a 2-move forced checkmate if black plays Kg8 which I would not say was insane. If instead you take the knight as fxg5 then you just get fxg5+ which forces Qf6 into a pin. No matter what that Ng5+ move is super strong. I mean it's pretty likely the dude was cheating but I wouldn't say that sacrifice was really a clear cut cheating example.
I like the video, but that queen sacrifice is really easy to see... Like casual player level. The hard to spot move was the knight sacrifice before: that feels more like IM or GM level.
I'd say the most unhumanlike moves are the ones that seem completely ignorant of the main conflicts in the position: it is moves like those that actually look weird, and then, when you analyse them properly you see that that random king move was actually shutting down options, like, 3, 5 moves deep. Just not human.
Good for you. The International Master who was playing against the cheater in the game also did not see either of the queen sacrifices coming, even though it was quite a long match.
It's not that easy when there isn't anyone telling you that a winning tactic exists.