I just finished a pair of games on another server with an opponent rated 100 pts below me, but who won both games. No big deal, it happens. I subjected both games to computer analysis and found their play was flawless both games. Since it is extremely for this to happen even once for someone who plays at my level I thought there was a sure sign that they had used computer assistance. Howvver, checking their history I see they joined a short time ago and have won every game. Since it is very possible that this is just a very strong player who just hasn't worked their rating up to where it should be I certainly am not going to file complaints. However, I'm suspicious enough to wonder if anyone knows of more sophisticated ways to tell if I was facing a strong human player or somebody just entering the moves an engine was spitting out at them.
Originally posted by SkorjI wouldn't put it past them. Internet cheaters are rampant. But, don't say anyone was cheating unless you have solid proof.
I just finished a pair of games on another server with an opponent rated 100 pts below me, but who won both games. No big deal, it happens. I subjected both games to computer analysis and found their play was flawless both games. Since it is extremely for this to happen even once for someone who plays at my level I thought there was a sure sign that they had u ...[text shortened]... a strong human player or somebody just entering the moves an engine was spitting out at them.
Originally posted by ChesswickAgreed.....unless there is a lot of tactical stuff going on, engines often will not offer a better suggestion.
I've had many "flawless" games as analyzed by Chessmaster, and I'm rated below you. I find that I typically have such games with more quiet positional players, and less so with attacking players.
I recently had Chessmaster 6000 agree with 35 out of 37 moves in an OTB game. If Chessmaster really had a rating as high as they claim, it should have suggested some improvements because we were not rated anywhere near 2500!
Chessmaster will agree with your move if the score does not change significantly. That is, the second, third, or even eighth best move (in some positions) will merit "agreement." I can play a pathetic, error filled game agianst Chessmaster at blitz time controls and still earn an 80% agreement with CM's analysis. If I run the same game through Fritz analysis, 50% of the moves will have suggested improvements.
You need more measures than the raw score output of Chessmaster. Also there are more than 200 available engines--most playing with ELOs significantly above 2000. Still, in most tactical situations, most of these engines will find the same moves.
There are complex positions, usually closed with a material imbalance, that engines play poorly, and that even a C class player may play well. If you can find such positions in the games of a suspected cheat, you may have strong evidence of computer use if she or he plays as badly as the engines.
Originally posted by WulebgrI've run some of these engines through those "Rate Your Chess" columns, and they rarely score more than 1900-2100 rating. They also seem to have no idea of how to play endings. Any comments?
Also there are more than 200 available engines--most playing with ELOs significantly above 2000.
Originally posted by masscatEndings traditionally have been a weakness of engines until the pieces become few enough that tablebases come into play. The strongest engines seem to understand the concept of the opposition, but I've seen tactical monsters that have no idea how to proceed if both sides have several pawns and a minor piece.
I've run some of these engines through those "Rate Your Chess" columns, and they rarely score more than 1900-2100 rating. They also seems to have no idea of how to play endings. Any comments?
Perhaps a high level of engine agreement followed by a weak endgame could be adduced as evidence of engine abuse.
Originally posted by WulebgrOnly problem with that is I know a few players with weak endings compared to the rest of their game (possibly due to lack of study compared to their openings, middlegame planning etcetera).
Endings traditionally have been a weakness of engines until the pieces become few enough that tablebases come into play. The strongest engines seem to understand the concept of the opposition, but I've seen tactical monsters that have no idea how to proceed if both sides have several pawns and a minor piece.
Perhaps a high level of engine agreement followed by a weak endgame could be adduced as evidence of engine abuse.
Of course, if there is a high level of agreement, followed by a high level of agreement in a poorly played endgame (as opposed to just a poor endgame), that would be even stronger evidence...
I play mostly Correspondence (rating low 2000's) and have rarely suspected anybody of engine use. In many cases, because you know their real name, you can look up their OTB rating which is usually within range of their postal rating (or a little lower). Personally I don't care if they are using an engine, I'm playing for fun anyway.
Originally posted by masscatHow can you look up someones elo here?
I play mostly Correspondence (rating low 2000's) and have rarely suspected anybody of engine use. In many cases, because you know their real name, you can look up their OTB rating which is usually within range of their postal rating (or a little lower). Personally I don't care if they are using an engine, I'm playing for fun anyway.
Id like to check it against someone i know
Originally posted by GrandmousterI don't think you can unless you know their real name. I was talking about correspondence play using post cards. I can go to the USCF web site and look up ratings.
How can you look up someones elo here?
Id like to check it against someone i know
Originally posted by masscatI was recently playing someone who happened to have a profile stating their age and location. From chatting over the board, what he told me about his position in OTB junior circles, his OTB rating would have had to be around 500 points below his rating here!!! (My rating here, for example, is 250 points below my FIDE grade).
I don't think you can unless you know their real name. I was talking about correspondence play using post cards. I can go to the USCF web site and look up ratings.
Originally posted by welsharnieI have a provisional NZCF rating. It's horrible. It's also based off one 5 round OTB tournament quite a while back. It was my first OTB tournament and as such I played horribly mostly due to nerves. Rating itself does not tell the entire story.
I was recently playing someone who happened to have a profile stating their age and location. From chatting over the board, what he told me about his position in OTB junior circles, his OTB rating would have had to be around 500 points below his rating here!!! (My rating here, for example, is 250 points below my FIDE grade).
Also, correspondence and OTB chess are very different games. I take my time on this site, I use databases and books. These all help me to play better on this site than I would in person. I have a 1700 rating on playchess in standard, 1500 in blitz and 1300 in lightning (based on only a few games though). The shorter the time controls the worse I play.