Originally posted by Fat Lady Can you post a game where you have successfully implemented this technique against a computer?
am playing one now and will be glad to give you the game id as soon as it ends. I will stand by my contention that it is a characteristic of contemporary engines to fail to value strategy over tactics in moving from the middlegame phase into the endgame phase. I believe if Mikhail Botvinnik were alive, and programming engines, that would not be the case. He worked to program into computers the value of strategy; for instance, to value the positioning of a piece based on its attack potential and attack trajectory.
Having said that, whether I am playing a person or a 'puter, I value a piece only if it is attacking, supporting an attack, or actively defending. If not I discard it. Sometimes erroneously called a scarifice or an exchange.
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.
Even moreso when you consider her former username User 227299
Makes you wonder why she is struggling to regain her previous form 😛
Originally posted by Squelchbelch It 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 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% )
...[text shortened]... his has been proven by analysis of several top GM matches now, not just Fischer-Spassky 1972.
Your analysis have one flaw: The games you considered were not CC games.
At the top of his form, what would have been Fisher's matcch up rate against top grandmasters? That would be a "human limit".
CC is for people that enjoys in-depth analysis of chess. If a player has a high match-up rate and is not cheating, then there should exist an enormous amount of analysis supporting the moves actually made in the game. Ask the person to submit the analysis.
The credibility of a CC player is directly proportional to the quality and depth of his/her analysis. Rating does not mean much.
Originally posted by smaia Your analysis have one flaw: The games you considered were not CC games.
At the top of his form, what would have been Fisher's matcch up rate against top grandmasters? That would be a "human limit".
CC is for people that enjoys in-depth analysis of chess. If a player has a high match-up rate and is not cheating, then there should exist an enormous amount of ...[text shortened]... irectly proportional to the quality and depth of his/her analysis. Rating does not mean much.
Similar analysis has been done on top correspondence players´ games (from the days before strong engines) the results for match-up rates, from memory, were pretty similar.
Originally posted by no1marauder Dozens of users are banned every year for cheating. While that hardly means "everybody is a cheat" it does imply that cheating is common here. The "logic" of the accusations is quite clear; people here don't want to play engines and don't like being cheated. It's hardly surprising that they would complain about it.
I'm not sure how many folks are actually banned a year, but whether cheating is "common" would depend on what percentage are cheating as a ratio of total players here. A few dozen if you have 10000 players would not constitute cheating as being "common."
Originally posted by Shamash am playing one now and will be glad to give you the game id as soon as it ends. I will stand by my contention that it is a characteristic of contemporary engines to fail to value strategy over tactics in moving from the middlegame phase into the endgame phase. I believe if Mikhail Botvinnik were alive, and programming engines, that would not be the case. ...[text shortened]... vely defending. If not I discard it. Sometimes erroneously called a scarifice or an exchange.
I checked all your in progress games. I wasn´t scientific about it I just went through them with Crafty. Some of them are still in opening book territory. Of the ones that are not I can say without a shadow of a doubt that none of your opponents is using an engine.
Engines do not assess positions the way humans do. They do a brute force calculation where they search all relevant lines. and have a simple algorithm to evaluate positions at the leaf nodes. They can prune the tree of variations by ruling about completely poor lines, but it is still basically a brute force search. The algorithm has to be quick as engines get most of their playing strength from covering all relevant lines as deeply as practicable - Crafty checks 500,000 nodes per second on my machine - this means that the evaluation routine, move list generation, and all the other stuff has less than 3,000 clock cycles to make it´s assessment as well as the other stuff it has to do.
Engines are flakey in the opening, but modern engines play the ending depressingly well. You do not understand the basics of the functioning of chess engines.
Originally posted by DeepThought This is total nonsense. Very strong players are able to trick engines into inferior lines by sacrificing a pawn or otherwise cause it to make a move horizon error, against the stronger engines this involves detailed knowledge of it´s position evaluation function and openings database. The latter is an especial target as engines fare badly during the op ...[text shortened]... ngine because it will avoid lines where it is checkmated when there is any less bad alternative.
Deep Thought -- wow you're even named after a 'puter.
your theory sounds sound
But, as Galileo said in toppling Ptolemy's logical theory that the earth stood still while the Sun rotated around the earth -- still it moves.
In practice my strategy works. (Lately, it's worked playing black, gambitting in a Gruenfeld; and playing white, gambitting in a Bishop's Opening.)
After all, computers look tactically for the best next move.
Best players don't look for the best move -- but the best plan.
banned players
24 Feb '09 19:55
Back to Top