Originally posted by EmashiLOL. How idiotic.
Hi stephen, you are somehow right.
But maybe i exaggerated a little, but i really am not trusting people going above 2k rating, and will suspect of him/her as a cheater. The people mentioned above, i have full confidence in, although i have friends above 2k but yet i can't be certain. With the number of bannings and cludi a game mod was a cheat himself explains it.
So a person who worked his/her ass off at getting that good at chess is always suspect to you, but the cheater who is on his/her way up through the ranks with an 1800 rating is not?
Wonderful.
Originally posted by pijunPijun, when I figure my opponent is using an engine for making moves, I do NOT
If one is playing against a player they suspect of cheating what would be the fun thing to do ?
A. Keep playing normally
B. Take as much time as possible and maximize time bank to anger them
C. Resign ASAP
D. Play absurd and amusing moves since you will loose anyways
A- keep playing normally
nor B- maximimize time to anger him or her,
nor C -- resign because of it
and never D -- never play absurd moves -->
Because, there is no reason I "would lose anyway," as you phrase it.
Here's what to do:
1) play strategically, especially in the phase emerging from middlegame to endgame, which is where engines generally are poor,
2) try to gauge which engine you're opposing, and adjust accordingly -- since Crafty is poor, Shredder is worthless, Spike Turin strategically lacking, and Hiarcs very closely approximates a 1700-player's moves, for instance.
3) if it's early in the game (or a rematch), push a wall of pawns at them, maybe a variation of Bird's Opening
4) go for a mutually-assured-destruction position: Tempt the computer to come closer for a checkmate, distract its heavy pieces, but load up your own attacking pieces, so your own attack is one move closer to mating it than it is to you;
5) exchange off or sac every piece that is not: 1) actively attacking, 2) supporting an attack, or 3) defending.
After all, a computer is more predictable than a person, and cannot resist the temptation when you invite it to come attack you; it's hairy, scary, on the edge, but it feels good when you can pull it off and mate the puter. I have.
Originally posted by ShamashPosts like this are entertaining in ways the author cannot anticipate. 😀
Pijun, when I figure my opponent is using an engine for making moves, I do NOT
A- keep playing normally
nor B- maximimize time to anger him or her,
nor C -- resign because of it
and never D -- never play absurd moves -->
Because, there is no reason I "would lose anyway," as you phrase it.
Here's what to do:
1) play strategically, especially ry, on the edge, but it feels good when you can pull it off and mate the puter. I have.
Originally posted by ShamashCan you post a game where you have successfully implemented this technique against a computer?
Pijun, when I figure my opponent is using an engine for making moves, I do NOT
A- keep playing normally
nor B- maximimize time to anger him or her,
nor C -- resign because of it
and never D -- never play absurd moves -->
Because, there is no reason I "would lose anyway," as you phrase it.
Here's what to do:
1) play strategically, especially ...[text shortened]... ry, on the edge, but it feels good when you can pull it off and mate the puter. I have.
I want to see one as well. My play is cheapo tricks, if one of these
things takes material then you your only hope is that it's horizon is
set for 9 moves and you have an unlikely mate in 10.
I think that snatching a loose pawn and defending in positions
that humans would not accept is a dead give away.
I've been really lucky as a lot of my unsound nonsense has worked,
which is what happens OTB v less experienced players.
However I have seen stats using the 'old' top three match up and
the 'new' system being developed in the OTB club that make it
quite clear that box use is happening.
Originally posted by greenpawn34According to the "old" system it is quite clear that a certain Robert Fischer was using an engine in 1972! The problem with statistical methods seems not to be the method but poor understanding of how statistics works. There is too much concern with thresholds above which a human cannot possibly go (utter nonsense) and not enough research into what is normal for humans under various circumstances. How engines actually perform also needs to be investigated. Finally, one must remember that improbable or unlikely does not mean impossible. I hope that the "new" system addresses some of that although I suspect it as about as likely as Mr. Fischer owning a copy of Fritz in 1972.
I want to see one as well. My play is cheapo tricks, if one of these
things takes material then you your only hope is that it's horizon is
set for 9 moves and you have an unlikely mate in 10.
I think that snatching a loose pawn and defending in positions
that humans would not accept is a dead give away.
I've been really lucky as a lot of my un ...[text shortened]... ystem being developed in the OTB club that make it
quite clear that box use is happening.
I remember that thread on Fischer.
But if my memory serves the stats were taken from Fischer-Spassky '72
which was actually a very tactical match so one can expect high match up's.
I cannot recall any claim that if Fischer had the same stats on here then
he would be banned. (Though I cannot be bothered to go and dig out
the old thread).
But I can tell you that players on here using the same machine
that analysed the F & S match were and have been and still do record
higher stats than Fischer.
Put it perpsective:
Players on here have higher match up's than Robert James Fischer
at the peak of his career.
Not a witch hunt, not a brash statement. A FACT.
The new system is been tuned ATM but it is bringing up the same conclusions.
I am very unclear how I feel about this.
Some days I shrug and say who cares I'm here to have some fun
and I'll win more than I lose. Cheats - who cares.
Other days I'm thinking what's the point of digging out stuff over
the board. If it looks trappy my opponent is a simple mouse
click away from finding the refutation.
Today it is the latter. I'm shouting for all the little guys who I've
swindled and tricked, the clean players.
Who speaks up them? Who protects them?
Now it seems they do not even get the pleasure of clicking a skull
when a cheat gets the hoof.
But that is today:
Tomorrow. Cheats - who cares.
My problem with the various cheat detection methods is quite simply that no one seems to have actually carried out any proper testing. OK, there are safeguards to prevent people being banned unfairly. I would still be willing to bet that it is possible for non-cheats to be banned as cheats. Whether that has happened or not is another matter. It is probably something we have to accept if statistical methods are going to be used.
More worrying is the opposite case. How certain are we that these systems actually detect anything other than the most blatant and obvious cases of cheating? Very often we hear of someone being banned and many people say "Yeah, it was obvious (without doing any engine analysis) that he/she/it was cheating". I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of bannings that have resulted in a significant number of people being unsure that it was fair. On that basis the old method is a massive waste of time. Is the new one faster and less wasteful of time? More accurate?
So the little guy, the one who got swindled or tricked, is not being protected very well. He may even be playing at less than his best due to the stress caused by thinking he is surrounded by cheats and/or that he might play too well and get falsely banned! Neither thought seems to be backed up by the evidence available but who said that chess players had to be completely rational?
Originally posted by Keplerwith the old system, all past CC masters prior to computer era passed the test. that was enough for me.
My problem with the various cheat detection methods is quite simply that no one seems to have actually carried out any proper testing. OK, there are safeguards to prevent people being banned unfairly. I would still be willing to bet that it is possible for non-cheats to be banned as cheats.
Originally posted by wormwoodOf course they all passed the test. If any had failed (we don't know that did not happen) then the test would need to be adjusted to take account of that data. I think we should be asking how many engines have passed the test. The answer will not be zero simply because the old system did not catch every engine user.
with the old system, all past CC masters prior to computer era passed the test. that was enough for me.
Originally posted by greenpawn34It would be bordeline. They would probably warrant further investigation, depending on other criteria such as how many G.I.P & moves per month & so on.
I remember that thread on Fischer.
But if my memory serves the stats were taken from Fischer-Spassky '72
which was actually a very tactical match so one can expect high match up's.
I cannot recall any claim that if Fischer had the same stats on here then
he would be banned. (Though I cannot be bothered to go and dig out
the old thread)...
I find it rather hard to believe that we have Super GM's with too much time on their hands, giving blitz demos on RHP.
These were the results:
Result:
Fischer
Top 1 Match: 385/658 (58,5% )
Top 2 Match: 509/658 (77,4% )
Top 3 Match: 563/658 (85,6% )
Spassky
Top 1 Match: 368/657 (56,0% )
Top 2 Match: 461/657 (70,2% )
Top 3 Match: 525/657 (79,9% )
The people who have been banned on this site (at least the ones I've investigated) have had matchup stats far exceeding those above, so Kepler's point about Fischer having used an engine in 1972 is missing the point.
Anyone who has matchup rates of around 60%/75%/85% in many games once out of book is playing at the extreme end of human capability. This has been proven by analysis of several top GM matches now, not just Fischer-Spassky 1972.
Does anyone understand this is a chess site not an inquistion site?This site is so possesed with paranoid schizophrenia and spooks behind every pawn. This site is not a chess site that anyone wants to stay long at with the witch hunt for anyone that plays decent chess. No wonder all of the best go to ICCF, FICGS, GK, CC and others you proliteriat of mindless narrow minded bigots are pushing everyone away. Stop with this incesscent and ad infintium hunt for what you precieve as cheating. Cripe, what a bunch on whining no playing low rated hacks that constantly complain. It is endless drivel which makes the rest of us sick to our stomachs. Congratulations on creating a site where no one with a decent rating wants to play. Congratulations on pushing everyone with a title to other sites.
Originally posted by Katonahgood riddance!
... No wonder all of the best go to ICCF, FICGS, GK, CC and others ...
by far the most common reason why strong players don't play online or CC is the abundance of engine use. RHP is one of the very few sites that even try to do something about it. of your suggestions only chess.com does it as well, the rest are infested with engine use.
Originally posted by EmashiHow ironic
Hi stephen, you are somehow right.
But maybe i exaggerated a little, but i really am not trusting people going above 2k rating, and will suspect of him/her as a cheater. The people mentioned above, i have full confidence in, although i have friends above 2k but yet i can't be certain. With the number of bannings and cludi a game mod was a cheat himself explains it.
User 227299
Good riddence to you also. Nice comment. Don't think you are not under scrutiny, you are above 2K the cut off line for the morons who have no understanding of chess. The site is being turned into a finite fraternity of blandness because of the constant implications of cheating.