Another Engine User

Originally posted by Bruce Willis
I was so happy to start a game with a 2200+ player.... Game 2911210
Now I have to find a new one... 🙁

You got Fritz for Christmas, at least you can finish your game against TouregNew now.

Originally posted by Irax
You got Fritz for Christmas, at least you can finish your game against TouregNew now.

lol 🙂 !!!

Originally posted by Korch
They are rude and uncommunicable, because they are afraiding to show that their knowledges of chess are lower then their results.

Thats my opinion at least.

yea, ban all those "afraiding" engine users!

sorry, I just had to say that (no offense intended...except @ the engine users)

Originally posted by saffa73
Not up to me, is up to admin

LOLOLOLOL

I hope you're trying to be funny, otherwise you're coming off as an idiot

I was wondering , How you can tell if someone is using a chess engine? Especially if it were not used on every move? Who decides that someone is using one?

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I was wondering , How you can tell if someone is using a chess engine? Especially if it were not used on every move? Who decides that someone is using one?

ask saffa, he seems to know

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I was wondering , How you can tell if someone is using a chess engine? Especially if it were not used on every move? Who decides that someone is using one?

There are some moves that are typical engine moves that humans would be unlikely to make. These occur for a number of reasons.
1. An engines grasp of tactics is infinately superior to a human (in fact engines no longer make tactical mistakes). An obscure move that enters a long but sound tactical phase would therefore point towards engine use (if over a number of games a player never makes a tactical mistake this would point to engine use as even the very best human players make mistakes at times);
2. Engines have been bad at endgames (except if a tablebase is installed) and are likely to go down lines a strong human player would not (for example an engine finds it difficult to win with a K&Q vs K&R or K&2N vs K&P where a strong human would find the correct plan);
3. If using tablebases then difficult endings are move perfect which even strong humans cannot manage;
4. Engines will play delaying moves to avoid mate, even giving away pieces, where a strong human would simply resign.

If someone uses an engine for the odd move I would imagine that would be virtually impossible to pick up but it would be pointless because unless he were actually a strong player (when why use an engine) he would play badly as soon as the engine were not used and would lose.

and don't forget the very short time to make several moves...

Originally posted by Bruce Willis
and don't forget the very short time to make several moves...

There are a number of reasons why someone may take a very short time.

1. The moves are obvious;
2. They have gone back to it a number of times been thinking, possibly set it up on a board (I like to do this with tricky positions rather than the analyse feature), and return to finally make their moves;
3. They are still in an opening book / database;
4. They calculated the combination earlier and didn't feel a need to address it again.

Moving quickly in itself indicates nothing. Moving quickly and matching an engine perfectly over a protracted series of moves is, however, a very strong pointer to abuse. However, it is possible even modest players could manage this in the odd game so it would also have to be over a protracted number of games.

yes, you're right.

Originally posted by Bruce Willis
yes, you're right.

However if someone plays 200 games quickly and never makes a mistake you may reach your own conclusions.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
However if someone plays 200 games quickly and never makes a mistake you may reach your own conclusions.

Without tactical mistake - becauce in blitz engines are much weaker in stategy.

Well, I suppose Kasparov's "Anti-Machine Chess" is never more useful than online. 🙂

GM Larry Christensen has an interesting outlook on playing against machines, I too agree with Larry. Removing a computer from the book early on can lead to slow positional play in which strategy rather than tactics predominates, when this occurs humans have a 13% better chance of winning. (According to LC's database). My personal favorites include the Caro-Kann, the Alekhine Defense/Modern Variation, and closed sicilian games.

It may also be prudent to check on the opening's played from white, as a application would normally accept more tactically dominant gambit's, and of course will almost always open with e4 (humans do this very popularly as well, but about 7% less) 🙂.

But then, we wouldn't have to, if we just burned them all at the stake properly.

Originally posted by Adorea
Well, I suppose Kasparov's "Anti-Machine Chess" is never more useful than online. 🙂

GM Larry Christensen has an interesting outlook on playing against machines, I too agree with Larry. Removing a computer from the book early on can lead to slow positional play in which strategy rather than tactics predominates, when this occurs humans have a 13% better c ...[text shortened]... abase).

But then, we wouldn't have to, if we just burned them all at the stake properly.

Even I have won engine using such a strategy 🙂

Originally posted by Korch
Even I have won engine using such a strategy 🙂

I went about it a different way. I guess my way may be considered slightly cheap but I found an interesting flawed line in the database of my engine. I then analysed the position ahead of time (without engine help) and got what I believed was the gist of the position.

And then I played the engine (in 10+5) and watched it walk right into my previous preparation. The game didn't go quite how I expected from there but I did enough to gain a clear advantage and managed to not make a mistake big enough to cost me the game.