Originally posted by 7ate9thanks you 7ate9 for clearing that up for me.
grandmaster bater was saying fritz (the computer) recomended all of ironmans moves in a game as it's 1st pick.
i don't think the rest of what was said had much real meaning, but if every move matched up in a game it wouldn't look good.
Originally posted by 7ate9Uh? I don't get what you mean, might you clarify for me?
yep,
part of what i've learnt in chess is how you can move your opponent's pieces. i know it's also possible to target someone as a cheat in this manner... say for example you give a good player limited good options, which they will play and so will fritz.
I think the tell-tale signs are,
- very good play in Open (esp tactical) positions
- very bad play in Closed or mainly strategic positions
- quirks like going into a table-base win where there's obviously quicker, but over the horizon, ways
- clueless in conversation about chess
- materialism
I also read somewhere that in positions with very limited choices and chances, computers often play the most aggressive line to which there may only be one defence, but that defence is obvious to human beings. In other words in some situations they are not realistic about their opponents. Is that what you meant?!
1 edit
Originally posted by rmackenThere is a good probability of matching a computer, particularly during the course of a sharp, tactical game. There is a much smaller probability of matching a computer throughout a game. But it is statically impossible for a human being, unaided, to significantly match a computer game after game after game.
BUT, could these people just be good enough that they would make the same moves as the program?? I mean, is it possible for some people to think exactly like the program used to cheat?? I realise that the probability wouldnt be 100% all the time which leads me onto say how many games are checked before these people are classed as cheats?
Typically, we analyze between 20 and 30 games before reaching a decision and employ statistical analysis against engine-free control data. Basically, we arrive at a statistic which gives us the probability that a player is human (ie not computer assisted). The worst two offenders so far managed to register 1 chance in 20 billion and 1 chance in 10 billion respectively! A typical RHP player will score 99 chances in 100.
In some cases the statistics are so overwhelming as to be sufficient "proof", but often we also need to detect "computer-like" moves. There are various other accompanying tools and analyses, developed by Russ, that assist us in reaching a conclusion.
Originally posted by 7ate9I took this as how you can force your opponent to move E.I. you put him in check and there are a limited spaces he can go and you keep checking them until you can weasel a mate...
[b]yep,
part of what i've learnt in chess is how you can move your opponent's pieces.
For some reason i think i just don't understand enough about chess yet to talk with you guys and some of you are just mean for the sake of being mean
While others seem to be pretty decent. I thought I found chess environment to learn and grow in. but know I'm just not sure.
I get confuse easily sure you can just right me off as a smoker. That’s your loss. In the future I hope to give you all a run for your money.
When is someone "cheating". At this time limit don't we all use books on openings and endings if we have them. Some times these can give "better" moves than say Fritz especially in gambit lines (which computers don't like).
Is using a database or chess engine to help with tactics or to avoid a blunder but still deciding the moves yourself based on your style of play "cheating"?
There is no point in setting our computer to play. I learn nothing then. I want to play on RHP to help improve my chess and doesn't everyone. What satisfaction is there in having your computer win.
But then even Kasparov would not win 300-0 against me. I would get the occasional draw so surely players who are getting that sort of result must be cheating somehow!
2 edits
Originally posted by rmackenmaybe a ghost player, that the chesshost sets up, plays you as the chessmaster (chessmasater 10th edition), or a Gary Kasparov simulator.
I have been wondering this for a while!??
I know there is a program that you can run your game through in order to beat your opponent, just like these players have been discovered in doing.
BUT, could these people just be good enough that they would make the same moves as the program?? I mean, is it possible for some people to think exactly like ...[text shortened]... with the program so could it be feasible for the human brain to think the same???
Cheers🙂
.....and if you win, they go like "right then" 🙂
Originally posted by Dragon FireYes to an engine in all cases. No if the database is an opening database, yes if it is a tablebase (ie endgame database.)
Is using a database or chess engine to help with tactics or to avoid a blunder but still deciding the moves yourself based on your style of play "cheating"?!
Btw, I saw from your home page you play in the Portsmouth League. I used to play in that League as a junior for Cosham! Which is your team, if you don't mind me asking?