Cenerentola's CPU is better than Ulf's:

cener is now 2526. I wonder what his or her rating is OTB, that is, the human rating, not the CPU.

Boykott? 2000+ players can resign against Ulf and Cen with the 1st move. So they cannot climb higher and the others don´t fall down with their rating... :-))

Originally posted by Aspasia
Boykott? 2000+ players can resign against Ulf and Cen with the 1st move. So they cannot climb higher and the others don´t fall down with their rating... :-))

Does a 2500 player even get one point against say, a 1500 dude?

No, he doesn´t. In a game with low rated players the 2500+ players only can lose... :-))

Originally posted by Aspasia
No, he doesn´t. In a game with low rated players the 2500+ players only can lose... :-))

well, not quite, 3 outcomes, 2 of which lose, but winning, at least you don't lose points, you stay where you are.

test

Why because of peoples rating so high we have to assume that they cheat?! That is just ridiculous! And to find out who's computer would be better is obviously looking at their versus each other.

Originally posted by sonhouse
cener is now 2526. I wonder what his or her rating is OTB, that is, the human rating, not the CPU.

1329.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Why because of peoples rating so high we have to assume that they cheat?! That is just ridiculous! And to find out who's computer would be better is obviously looking at their versus each other.

The presumption is based on several things. The most serious approach is based on the fact that the moves of a REAL 2500 player will have a certain % match with those chosen by a strong chess engine, but that % will be far short of 100%, because people simply don't play like computers. So if you analyse a series of, say, Kasparov's games with a strong engine, and the match-up is 80%, and then you analyse a series of "RHP GM" games and the match-up is 95%, then that should ring alarm bells. At least that's how I understand the procedure.

A simpler approach is to assume that any strong human player will take time to find strong moves. So, if a certain "RHP GM" is making thousands of strong moves a month, the assumption is that they are using an engine. They MIGHT, I suppose, just have a very extensive database, and be following "the best" lines, but that begs the question -- how do they know which moves to select?

To be on the safe side, I simply assume that any player here in the high 2xxx range is using an engine, unless they give me reason to believe that they are not.

Originally posted by pdunne
The presumption is based on several things. The most serious approach is based on the fact that the moves of a REAL 2500 player will have a certain % match with those chosen by a strong chess engine, but that % will be far short of 100%, because people simply don't play like computers. So if you analyse a series of, say, Kasparov's games with a strong engin ...[text shortened]... the high 2xxx range is using an engine, unless they give me reason to believe that they are not.

I wonder what pleasure an engine user gets from a win. I suppose at the end of the day, its the same as drug cheats in athletics.

Originally posted by pdunne
The presumption is based on several things. The most serious approach is based on the fact that the moves of a REAL 2500 player will have a certain % match with those chosen by a strong chess engine, but that % will be far short of 100%, because people simply don't play like computers. So if you analyse a series of, say, Kasparov's games with a strong engin ...[text shortened]... the high 2xxx range is using an engine, unless they give me reason to believe that they are not.

Most of those players do the same moves over and over again and never do anything else so maybe they look at it once and just do it over and over again?

Does anyone have an idea of how much computer engines match each other?

There is obviously some variance among chess engines (wins and losses in computer matches are the obvious indicators), but it would be interesting to know how often and by how much in evaluations.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Does anyone have an idea of how much computer engines match each other?

There is obviously some variance among chess engines (wins and losses in computer matches are the obvious indicators), but it would be interesting to know how often and by how much in evaluations.

Good question, Paul. Which leads me to despair of implementing an effective and thorough policy of policing engine use at RHP.

A dedicated and clever engine user would have several engines running, and then only for a few moves in each game. This might explain the phenomenon to which King Tiger referred when he said he could understand some of the moves in a given game but not others.

To catch such an engine user would require a) a player of at least King Tiger's caliber to judge what a strong human player would likely consider as a candidate move; and b) someone running multiple engines on multiple computers, crunching through hundreds of games to see what the match % is. A massively time-consuming project, which, I think, precludes trying to check large numbers of suspected engine users.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Cen is now 2507. Is that the highest rating of all time for RHP? Engine or human?

engine

Originally posted by moonbus
Good question, Paul. Which leads me to despair of implementing an effective and thorough policy of policing engine use at RHP.

A dedicated and clever engine user would have several engines running, and then only for a few moves in each game. This might explain the phenomenon to which King Tiger referred when he said he could understand some of the moves i ...[text shortened]... ming project, which, I think, precludes trying to check large numbers of suspected engine users.

To obfuscate even further, not even GMs always agree on what would be a human candidate move.

It makes me laugh to think that if the famous Karpov-Miles game where Miles played 1 ... a6 were played today, there would be a clamor from the crowd to check Miles's shoes!