After all these years ...................

Originally posted by sonhouse
Korchi was just being paranoid. More like witch doctors convincing people they have a hex on them because the recipient believes it, self fulfilling prophesy.

Mind you, that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't really out to get you. And the Soviets were out to get Korchnoi, believe you me. They succeeded, too. Of course, what they used was plain, crude headology, not magic, but they employed it and Korchnoi (predictably) helped them succeed.

Richard

Originally posted by sonhouse

Can they get that kind of detail?

yes. the matchup rates differ a lot from game to game. also tactical games tend to have higher matchup compared to positional ones, because of the forced sequences. it's not unheard of getting a 100% matchup for a single game, for a human. therefore whatever results you get for a single game, you can't draw much conclusions from that. not conclusively anyway.

that's where the power of statistics come in. -any fool can throw two dices and get 2x6. once. but when he throws 2x6 twenty times in a row, the odds of that happening without cheating are astronomical.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Korchi was just being paranoid. More like witch doctors convincing people they have a hex on them because the recipient believes it, self fulfilling prophesy.

A bit dif from engine users.

I was merely opting topic within a topic, 'cheating,' I know what Korchnoi is like, did 'it' happen..'probably' is best consensus, the Soviets did go to these lengths..am I a sceptic, of course, I've seen Derren Brown 😉

Cheers lads.

Blog 4

Originally posted by sonhouse
How many of his games were included in the analysis? Could the analysis show games that were totally human, like was there a pattern, say 10% computer match for a couple of games, then 80% for one game then back to 20 for a game, etc.?

Can they get that kind of detail?

It's reasonably to include a large sample, say 20-30 games

I doubt that in the case of Weyerstrass there is a game one can say "that's clearly a human game!". When I first came to this site, I randomly picked two of his games and used an engine to see how the site makes sure that cyborgs are not allowed to play here. Needless to say, in both games Weyerstrass matched Rybka consistently.

There are more things you can use to detect cheaters even by analyzing a small number of games: tactical errors and total error in a game. Usually, in a complicated middle-game position between two strong human players, the evaluation of the engine fluctuates let's say from -0.50 to 0.50. It means nothing, of course, it's just how the engine says that a position is equal. Well, things were different with Weyerstrass: even if, for a certain move, there were like 6-7 good candidate moves, he always picked one considered optimal or near optimal (within 0.20).

Your numbers with 10% computer match are totally wrong! Even an 1600 player will match the top choice of an engine like 40-50%.

Well well, I've been away for a while and missed all these arguments. It would have been nice to come back and find chess and not cheating at the top of the forum list, but then again - that's chess for you.

Wasn't there talk of Korchnoi's family being held "hostage" and not allowed to leave the Soviet Union during the match? I seem to remember something along those lines. If so, Karpov should have spoken up but I don't think he had it in him. At least not then with the championship on the line.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well well, I've been away for a while and missed all these arguments. It would have been nice to come back and find chess and not cheating at the top of the forum list, but then again - that's chess for you.

Sorry, this is chess for RHP. Weyerstrass has been the top player here for 5 years! Everybody said "this is not chess, this is cheating". However, the RHP admins claimed until now: "you are all stupid, this is real chess and real talent."

Originally posted by cotoi
Sorry, this is chess for RHP. Weyerstrass has been the top player here for 5 years! Everybody said "this is not chess, this is cheating". However, the RHP admins claimed until now: "you are all stupid, this is real chess and real talent."

Yes, I know, it's just last time i dropped out of the site I came back to a discussion of the same player and it's tedious. I play online poker and they get really paranoid about 'bots there too.

From reading the forums yesterday I got the impression Weyer had been banned by chess.com first. I'd like it if the player investigation system didn't depend on a player being banned from other sites. Either there is clear evidence or there isn't. I'd like it if I could leave the site for a little while and then come back and not find "cheats" at the top of the chess forum. This is clearly the fault of the cheats, but the administrators don't help themselves by being slow about properly proven cases, threads like this wouldn't last otherwise.

Originally posted by KneeCaps
I think it was out of courtesy that they let Weyerstrass finish out his remaining games and waited until he was inactive for 100 days and had fallen off the rating list before they banned him. Why they extended him this courtesy is something only Russ and Co. know. Maybe it was because of his credentials. Maybe there was a friendship behind the scenes we do ...[text shortened]... w what? Throw him out with the trash? Or maybe reset his rating with a warning? What to do?

I suggest just put match up stat to with an engine to tell his potential opponents. Let his opponents to judge whether to play or not to play with him.

Originally posted by Bahari
I suggest just put match up stat to with an engine to tell his potential opponents. Let his opponents to judge whether to play or not to play with him.

That's okay for friendly games but what about tournaments and clan challenges and leagues? Would you just give the win to the cheaters?

Originally posted by Ponderable
That's okay for friendly games but what about tournaments and clan challenges and leagues? Would you just give the win to the cheaters?

Your are right. I missed that part.