Cheats

Scan this game and tell me who the engine user was. Or was there one? Answer to follow.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. e4 O-O 7. Be2 e6 8. O-O Re8 9. h3 exd5 10. exd5 Na6 11. Bg5 h6 12. Be3 Nc7 13. a4 Bf5 14. Bd3 Bxd3 15. Qxd3 Na6 16. Rae1 Nb4 17. Qb1 Nh5 18. Bd2 Qd7 19. b3 a6 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Re1 f5 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23. Qe1 Qxe1+ 24. Nxe1 Kf7 25. Ne2 a5 26. g3 g5 27. Bc3 Nf6 28. f3 Nd7 29. Bxg7 Kxg7 30. Kf2 Kf6 31. Ke3 Ne5 32. f4 Ng6 33. Nd3 Nxd3 1/2-1/2

Originally posted by masscat
Scan this game and tell me who the engine user was. Or was there one? Answer to follow.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. e4 O-O 7. Be2 e6 8. O-O Re8 9. h3 exd5 10. exd5 Na6 11. Bg5 h6 12. Be3 Nc7 13. a4 Bf5 14. Bd3 Bxd3 15. Qxd3 Na6 16. Rae1 Nb4 17. Qb1 Nh5 18. Bd2 Qd7 19. b3 a6 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Re1 f5 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23. Qe1 Qxe1+ 24. Nx ...[text shortened]... g5 27. Bc3 Nf6 28. f3 Nd7 29. Bxg7 Kxg7 30. Kf2 Kf6 31. Ke3 Ne5 32. f4 Ng6 33. Nd3 Nxd3 1/2-1/2

The only semi-suspicious move is ...a5. This game could've been played by either humans or computers.

Originally posted by masscat
Scan this game and tell me who the engine user was. Or was there one? Answer to follow.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. e4 O-O 7. Be2 e6 8. O-O Re8 9. h3 exd5 10. exd5 Na6 11. Bg5 h6 12. Be3 Nc7 13. a4 Bf5 14. Bd3 Bxd3 15. Qxd3 Na6 16. Rae1 Nb4 17. Qb1 Nh5 18. Bd2 Qd7 19. b3 a6 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Re1 f5 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23. Qe1 Qxe1+ 24. Nx ...[text shortened]... g5 27. Bc3 Nf6 28. f3 Nd7 29. Bxg7 Kxg7 30. Kf2 Kf6 31. Ke3 Ne5 32. f4 Ng6 33. Nd3 Nxd3 1/2-1/2

I did check this game with Fritz 9. If one of these players is cheater then it could be player who plays black - many (but not all) of black moves (which are out of theory) are matched by Fritz 9 (after 20-30 sec thinking).

It was a postal game I played against Reshevsky (Black) in 1979. Neither of us were using engines which didn’t exist (to the best of my recollection anyway). If I remember correctly I had a CC rating somewhere around “Class A” and I know Black was not an imposter. I knew where he lived and met him a few times. Imagine if I’d played this game today. In some ways engines are ruining our fun.

Originally posted by masscat
It was a postal game I played against Reshevsky (Black) in 1979. Neither of us were using engines which didn’t exist (to the best of my recollection anyway). If I remember correctly I had a CC rating somewhere around “Class A” and I know Black was not an imposter. I knew where he lived and met him a few times. Imagine if I’d played this game today. In some ways engines are ruining our fun.

excellent post !

Originally posted by masscat
It was a postal game I played against Reshevsky (Black) in 1979. Neither of us were using engines which didn’t exist (to the best of my recollection anyway). If I remember correctly I had a CC rating somewhere around “Class A” and I know Black was not an imposter. I knew where he lived and met him a few times. Imagine if I’d played this game today. In some ways engines are ruining our fun.

As I have said "if one of the players is cheater". Because I would not suspect players of that game without your "hint".

Originally posted by Korch
As I have said "[b]if one of the players is cheater". Because I would not suspect players of that game without your "hint".[/b]

That was my point because of all the paranoia that’s so prevalent. If I submitted this game and said I think my opponent was using an engine would he be under suspicion because the seed of doubt has been planted? Would people start thinking he’s an imposter? What if Black submitted the game? Would White be under suspicion simply because of the rating difference? What would you think if I drew with a GM today?

Originally posted by masscat
That was my point because of all the paranoia that’s so prevalent. If I submitted this game and said I think my opponent was using an engine would he be under suspicion because the seed of doubt has been planted? Would people start thinking he’s an imposter? What if Black submitted the game? Would White be under suspicion simply because of the rating difference? What would you think if I drew with a GM today?

That is why we are not to make accusations or insinuations about anyone in the public forums about cheating (planting a seed of doubt).

P-

can we accuse people of changing their avatar too much??

Originally posted by jvanhine
can we accuse people of changing their avatar too much??

Some people just can't be defined by a single avatar.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Some people just can't be defined by a single avatar.

P-

lol 😉

Originally posted by masscat
That was my point because of all the paranoia that’s so prevalent. If I submitted this game and said I think my opponent was using an engine would he be under suspicion because the seed of doubt has been planted? Would people start thinking he’s an imposter? What if Black submitted the game? Would White be under suspicion simply because of the rating difference? What would you think if I drew with a GM today?

I understand your concerns in this post, and those expressed earlier in this thread, but you confuse strong human play with engine play. The two are very different. In a microcosm it is hard to see what that difference might be, but when many, many games are taken into account and carefully analyzed, the difference stands out like chalk and cheese.

The game you cite is no different from the type of game used for our control data. Games between strong human players.

That is not to say that in any game there could not be an innocently high match-up to an engine's top choice. We find that higher correlations occur in sharper, tactical games, where there can be long sequences of forced moves. Lower correlations occur in positional, strategic games. Our analysis can make that distinction.

Chance can throw up a high correlation in one or two games. But chance cannot be a factor, move after move, game after game after game.

No current OTB GMs/IMs and no pre-computer era CC GMs/IMs that we have tested score anywhere near the engine match-ups attained by those players who have been banned for 3(b) at RHP. If the best players in the world past and present can come up clean, there is no legitimate reason why some of the players at RHP can't.

I put your game through our analysis: It's really very innocuous. For that one game, 44% of strong human players would score an equal or greater match-up than White, and 36% of strong human players would score an equal or greater match-up than Black. This game, on its own, would therefore be quite useless for any determination of engine use.

Originally posted by masscat
It was a postal game I played against Reshevsky (Black) in 1979. Neither of us were using engines which didn’t exist (to the best of my recollection anyway). If I remember correctly I had a CC rating somewhere around “Class A” and I know Black was not an imposter. I knew where he lived and met him a few times. Imagine if I’d played this game today. In some ways engines are ruining our fun.

well, to me, reshevsky's play does look a little suspicious, if you think about it strictly by numbers. but considering the game, it's quite understandable. I mean, he wanted to take no risks (probably waited for you to blunder), and you knocked the wind out of his sails every single time you could. for the few moves that weren't db, forced or securing the draw, he usually had a bunch of harmless moves to choose from, all equally evaluated (because they didn't really do much), and equally drawish. If he'd keep up this kind of matchup rate consistently over a large number of games (which I very much doubt), I'd definitely be suspicious. but this simply was the type of game which will give a high engine matchup, provided the player doesn't blunder.

your play was about what I expected, no where near looking like engine abuse. you headed for the draw the whole time, which was obviously a wise strategy against so much superior player, but made a lot of small errors (according to fritz, I'm not saying they were necessarily real errors) on the way. reshevsky didn't try to stir any trouble, and you ended up with a draw.

actually, it was quite interesting to see how well you managed to kill the game. you really didn't leave reshevsky much to choose from.

I've never seen reshevsky's games before. was he always this drawish? he was probably quite old at the time of the game though? oh right, I now see it took place 1979, so he was 68 years old back then.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
I understand your concerns in this post, and those expressed earlier in this thread, but you confuse strong human play with engine play. The two are very different. In a microcosm it is hard to see what that difference might be, but when many, many games are taken into account and carefully analyzed, the difference stands out like chalk and cheese.

Th This game, on its own, would therefore be quite useless for any determination of engine use.

I am a bit concerned by the following in D_U_N_Es posting

"... on at least one (is one all it takes?) occasion assistance from a chess engine has been used to suggest moves...

... They didn't tell me, where (in which games) I should have broken the rules by using an engine, I have no chance to defend myself (this seems unfair).

I have analysed past games with Fritz to find improvements. I have analysed lines in my "books" that I face regularly but I don't like to find improvements or suitable points to deviate from the book. Authors of many of my more recently purchased books use engines to help them and will now cover new lines discovered as a result of their engine use. I look at past games played here some of which are by banned members. As a result of this effort I may occasionally find an improvement that is a typical engine move. Admittedly this is not often and when it does occur it will probably only be a few moves but according to the above I could score a hit because by using past analysis I appear to have used an engine. I may have but before the game not during it or alternatively my moves may be in a database or engine analysis in a book. If the evidence is not presented to me, I cannot even explain why I might have apparently chosen an engine move so I am damned unfairly.

I thought members were given the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't seem the case here.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I am a bit concerned by the following in D_U_N_Es posting

"... on at least one (is one all it takes?) occasion assistance from a chess engine has been used to suggest moves...

I thought members were given the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't seem the case here.

No benefit of the doubt is given because there is no doubt.

"At least one" could mean any number of moves from one to all.

Is one move all it takes to be caught?

No-one has been banned from RHP on the basis of one move, although I can think of some single moves that have been quite damning evidence on their own.

Is one move all it takes to cheat?

Most certainly, yes.