1 edit
I have no Ravello games analysed; we've never played and the initial purpose of analysing my games was self-improvement. I then realized that no one had every come up with any kind of data regarding matchups of players at different rating levels and figured I'd see what the results were. Those are given earlier in the thread and are quite interesting.
I have two Nyxie games analysed: one against me and one where she played Exy which was the subject of a thread at FW. The two games vary pretty widely; 14/38 or 37% in our game; 25/38 or 66% in the Nyxie-Exy game. Of course, games of players will naturally vary: I'm sometimes in the 30% and sometimes in the 80% with the average ending up at 64%. I really prefer games done close together in time as wel,l as players do improve and I believe these two games were played about 4 months apart. It is however interesting to see that the total from the two games is 39/76 or 51% which is the average match up for a player in the 1600's, which is close to your rating now.
EDIT: Before everybody gets on a "whaddaaboutme" kick, analyzing a game even at the 60 second settings I use, still takes about an hour for an average games and several hours for long games. If you really wanna know how much you match up with Fritz8, break down and spend $30 or so OF YOUR hard earned shekels and use up some of YOUR valuable computer time.ðŸ˜
Originally posted by no1marauderThank you.
I have no Ravello games analysed; we've never played and the initial purpose of analysing my games was self-improvement. I then realized that no one had every come up with any kind of data regarding matchups of players at different rating levels and figured I'd see what the results were. Those are given earlier in the thread and are quite inte ...[text shortened]... 1% which is the average match up for a player in the 1600's, which is close to your rating now.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by no1marauderI can understand why No1Marauder is disillusioned and dissatisfied with the games mods and he made some valid points in this post, although there is much that I disagree with. But first, let me deal with the latter 2 points of his post:-
... So, I ask for the following:
1. Expansion of the Game Mod team to at least 6 individuals, the majority of whom should be strong, experienced players; and
2. Public notification when a user has been banned for engine use. This would also be tangible evidence that something is being done.
1) Expansion of the Game Mod team to at least 6 individuals, the majority of whom should be strong, experienced players.
I agree that this would be very desirable. But it's extremely difficult to find suitable volunteers who are prepared to give up an enormous amount of their time and energy in doing the necessary work. When the games mod team was initially assembled there were 4 games mods (myself, Phlabibit, SteveC and Zumdahl) and we intended to recruit others at a later stage. However both Zumdahl and SteveC dropped out very quickly because they couldn't spare the necessary time which was needed to be a games mod.
So why didn't we just recruit some replacements? The reason was that it's extremely difficult to find strong and experienced players who not only have an expertise and knowledge of several engines but are prepared to give up a colossal amount of their time (unpaid of course!) in doing fairly tedious, repetitive work. In addition they must also be honest, trustworthy, sensible, discrete, patient and impartial individuals and who have the right level-headed attitude. For these reasons many of the initial volunteers were ruled out because they didn't have the right temperament, chess expertise or engine knowledge. Others were asked but declined because they had changed their minds or no longer had the time to be a games mod.
2) Public notification when a user has been banned for engine use. This would also be tangible evidence that something is being done.
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. It's extremely difficult to prove that someone is an engine user. The games mods do their best and gather as much evidence as they can against a suspected cheat and then that individual is confronted. There is almost never a case of "overwhelming evidence" against someone. There's usually an element of doubt, particularly when the individual is a strong player, as a high engine match is not necessarily proof of cheating. If the individual confesses, then fine, they will probably be banned. However they're much more likely to deny everything and even though the games mods believe them to be guilty, we can't be 100% sure. So because of this element of doubt I don't feel comfortable with the idea of humiliating someone in front of the entire site by publicly labelling them as a cheat.
Originally posted by David TebbAnd so is there a point to any of this?
It's extremely difficult to prove that someone is an engine user...If the individual confesses, then fine, they will probably be banned. However they're much more likely to deny everything and even though the games mods believe them to be guilty, we can't be 100% sure.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis was the part I found most amazing. I have Fritz6 and it takes a couple of hours for any decent ply depth analysis. You must have invested a huge amount of time analyzing your games. At first glance it seems impractical, unless you've been doing it all along… which I assume you have been. To do it for 600+ games at once would be cumbersome to say the least unless you hijacked deep blue...
(Edited)
analyzing a game even at the 60 second settings I use, still takes about an hour for an average games and several hours for long games.
Originally posted by chessnut57I have Fritz 8 and a A64 3500+ with 1GB RAM. I can get 14+ ply in most positions (not opening but they don't get analysed with Fritz) in under 30 seconds.
This was the part I found most amazing. I have Fritz6 and it takes a couple of hours for any decent ply depth analysis. You must have invested a huge amount of time analyzing your games. At first glance it seems impractical, unless you've been doing it all along… which I assume you have been. To do it for 600+ games at once would be cumbersome to say the least unless you hijacked deep blue...
Fritz can be setup to analyse a collection of games automatically. All you would need to do is leave it for long enough. You could do it say while you slept each night and it would take weeks not months.
Originally posted by no1marauderI find this information very interesting. Just to throw my 2 cents worth in i feel compelled to point out that a lot of the top Correspondence players use engines to check variations (I am relating to an interview i read on chessbase with GM Arno Nickel - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462).
From my 640 games, opponents percentage matches at different levels on this site (book opening moves not included):
-1200 31%
1201-1300 33%
1301-1400 39%
1401-1500 42%
1501-1600 48%
1601-1700 51%
1701-1800 61%
1801-1900 63%
1901-2000 69%
...[text shortened]... ble evidence and the considered judgments of "experts". Other sites do it routinely.
This kind of engine use would be completely impossible to spot! While obviously i am whole heartedly in support of any (almost any) measures to curb engine use, i fear that it will become increasingly difficult to do so. If i wanted to use an engine (i don't) i could get away with it easily by choosing my own plans and using an engine to check my own variations. Having played on 'playchess.com', i've seen how they name and shame engine users. On a correspondence site there is far far more time involved. It simply isn't necissary to copy fritz's first choice, every move. Cheaters can cover their tracks pretty easily by using it as an error correcting device, i fear 100 moderators could bye pass a cheater using an engine in this way.
1 edit
Originally posted by David TebbWhile I have the greatest respect for you Dave, I think you are wrong on both points. I cannot believe that a reasonable look at the qualifications of some of the individuals on the lists invalidated them under the criteria you have given. Why not Gatecrasher? What qualifications does Phlabby have that he lacks? The choice of who wound up on the team was arbitrary and once people left, they should have been replaced. I do not believe that an attempt was made to keep the Game Mods at a level necessary for the work that must be done.
[b/]I can understand why No1Marauder is disillusioned and dissatisfied with the games mods and he made some valid points in this post, although there is much that I disagree with. But first, let me deal with the latter 2 points of his post: ...[text shortened]... front of the entire site by publicly labelling them as a cheat.
[/b]
As to your second point, no one can be 100% sure of anything, but if the Game Mods have made the decision that someone is a cheat, then why not publicize it? What is gained by throwing someone off the site but keeping that secret from the rest of the community? You know as well as I do that other sites routinely make public the names of users who have used engines in violation of the rules; why are they wrong, given the benefits of doing so I have outlined, and you are right, merely to spare the feelings of someone a group of Game Mods feel is a cheat?
Originally posted by XanthosNZNOW you tell me! In truth, I started analyzing these games back in February and just finished a few weeks ago (remember my computer illiteracy problem).
I have Fritz 8 and a A64 3500+ with 1GB RAM. I can get 14+ ply in most positions (not opening but they don't get analysed with Fritz) in under 30 seconds.
Fritz can be setup to analyse a collection of games automatically. All you would need to do is leave it for long enough. You could do it say while you slept each night and it would take weeks not months.
Originally posted by marinakatombThe fact that you can't do everything that would be desirable in a perfect world, is no excuse for not doing what you can.
I find this information very interesting. Just to throw my 2 cents worth in i feel compelled to point out that a lot of the top Correspondence players use engines to check variations (I am relating to an interview i read on chessbase with GM Arno Nickel - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462).
This kind of engine use would be complete ...[text shortened]... correcting device, i fear 100 moderators could bye pass a cheater using an engine in this way.
Originally posted by no1marauderDamn, you beat me to it... I was just about to post "what about me?", but I decided to finish reading the thread first. Well and then I realized I've never played you...
EDIT: Before everybody gets on a "whaddaaboutme" kick, analyzing a game even at the 60 second settings I use, still takes about an hour for an average games and several hours for long games. If you really wanna know how much you match up with Fritz8, break down and spend $30 or so OF YOUR hard earned shekels and use up some of YOUR valuable computer time.ðŸ˜
damn 😕
Ah well, so long 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the mods publish someone's name as a cheat on the site they could be on tricky legal ground. If someone's admitted use then it strikes me as counter-productive to publish their name as this will disuade other cheats from admitting use when challenged.
While I have the greatest respect for you Dave, I think you are wrong on both points. I cannot believe that a reasonable look at the qualifications of some of the individuals on the lists invalidated them under the criteria you h ...[text shortened]... feelings of someone a group of Game Mods feel is a cheat?
However publishing anonymous statistics on how many players have been investigated and how many have been shown to be likely engine users might help allay peoples fears.
Originally posted by shavixmirMistakes are made in English justice - so what?
Yes...
and an average 6% of prisoners in England are wrongly convicted. Locked up through fumbling and miscarriages of justice.
Take a peek at death row figures in the US: http://www.tcadp.org/factsAndFigures.htm
It's obvious justice is not objective.
As for punishment being a deterrent...naaaaaa....never was, never will be.
The only thing ...[text shortened]... ing but fool yourself".
Oh. I'd already said my last words on the subject. Obviously not.
Just because mistakes are made in the administration of justice does not mean that society throws its hands up and decides not to do it any more, does it?