This probably is why people cheat for no real gain

@Autofill said in #18:
> I disagree with your claim, hence the thumbs down. People get happy by winning. They cheat and win. So they are happy. And so they cheat more.

Right, but who is happy with winning when they don't win themselves but let the computer do it? Those who play a lot of games where the player's own skill doesn't count but where the character levels up by just playing the game basically. So disagree with that.

you are both right but if you do not think that the computer did it hence you can boast and pretend you did it

@dorkomplet said in #1:
> I've been thinking about this for maybe a year now and this is the only reason I can imagine.
>
> Computer games have made the culture so different from what it was, say, 20 years ago. Chess is seen as just another online game, and using mods and cheats is therefore OK. Someone who just starts chess after playing - for example - Skyrim gets frustrated by not progressing fast enough and doesn't completely - on the emotional level - get to grips with having to actually learn something to be better at it.
>
> In other words people are not initially worse than we used to be but the gaming world has shaped them a bit differently.

You are obviously very young, like most of people here (I believe most of users are in their teens). I'm in my 30s and I've got a long experience in online chess (I play since a long time, and I played a lot).

The reasons for cheating are many, and no, not progressing fast enough has nothing to do with it.

Kids and teens, they are just immature and have fun that way (they just want to win and aren't interested in how). Also, they probably like bragging with their friends about the high ratings they reach.
The vast majority of people cheating are kids and teens in my opinion, especially the very young ones (<14).

Adults, sometimes they do it, totally or in part, for money. To win prize tournaments, to pretend to be strong players and sell lessons, or maybe they're streamers and look for more views (which equal more money)...
Some other times, however, they do it for attention, which is extremely sad and pathethic. An adult should understand there're more important things in life than ratings on an online chess site. Imagine a 65 years old man (I met one once) reaching high ratings and playing the strong one part just to be banned (he admitted cheating, so no, the chess site didn't make a mistake). So sad and pathethic.

Yeah, obviously I'm very young when I say "than we used to be". How do you know not progressing fast enough has nothing to do with it?

So, in other words, the other games provide almost-instant gratification with some fake effort. It's easy to jump into the conclusion that chess is seen as just another online game where similar mental rules guide the player. I don't see why it should be discounted as a reason for cheating - when nothing else besides empty ELO or a useless tournament win is at stake.

The reasons you give are obviously valid but I think these computer game mechanics lower the bar.

I guess I'll have to repeat that I don't imagine nobody ever cheated before.

@dorkomplet said in #24:
> Yeah, obviously I'm very young when I say "than we used to be". How do you know not progressing fast enough has nothing to do with it?
>
> So, in other words, the other games provide almost-instant gratification with some fake effort. It's easy to jump into the conclusion that chess is seen as just another online game where similar mental rules guide the player. I don't see why it should be discounted as a reason for cheating - when nothing else besides empty ELO or a useless tournament win is at stake.
>
> I guess I'll have to repeat that I don't imagine nobody ever cheated before.

Uhm, you're right, you said "than we used to be", so claiming you're very young was like distrusting your word. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it.

I still disagree, however, on that being a reason for cheating. One can't have any gratification by obtaining high ratings with cheating. It's the computer obtaining them, not you.

@Basch_of_Dalmasca said in #25:
> Uhm, you're right, you said "than we used to be", so claiming you're very young was like distrusting your word. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it.
>
> I still disagree, however, on that being a reason for cheating. One can't have any gratification by obtaining high ratings with cheating. It's the computer obtaining them, not you.

That's just what I've been saying all the time. You could read back but here: The reason I've been wondering about this is: I don't understand why you want to gain ELO or tournament wins, cheating with a computer, at places like lichess that have no bearing to your real life chess advancement or anything. And I'm not talking about those who are clever enough to make a plan and cheat to actually gain something. Why, when your software wins it for you, would you do it at all? So my answer is this thing I'm talking about. Fake effort, shallow gratification --- whether or not other games have anything to do with it. But why shouldn't they?

@dorkomplet said in #21:
> Right, but who is happy with winning when they don't win themselves but let the computer do it? Those who play a lot of games where the player's own skill doesn't count but where the character levels up by just playing the game basically. So disagree with that.
Who is happy with losing?

@Autofill said in #27:
> Who is happy with losing?

Explains nothing to me but yeah, who is?

@dorkomplet said in #24:
> So, in other words, the other games provide almost-instant gratification with some fake effort. It's easy to jump into the conclusion that chess is seen as just another online game where similar mental rules guide the player.

How familiar you're with competitive online games, "esports"? CS, Valorant, LoL, DotA, Quake, StarCraft etc. Because it's nothing like what you say. And I think that's the closest comparison to chess.

@vvaaaqqqqvvaqvvvvaqv said in #29:
> How familiar you're with competitive online games, "esports"? CS, Valorant, LoL, DotA, Quake, StarCraft etc. Because it's nothing like what you say. And I think that's the closest comparison to chess.

I wasn't talking about those.