Originally posted by wormwoodI’ll have you know I qualified for the US Championship this year. OK, so my rating is crap and I haven’t played OTB for 20 years. But they are offering “Patron Entry Fees” of up to $50,000 this year. If I mortgaged my house or maxed out a couple credit cards I COULD come up with $40,000 and they would let me play. So I’m qualified. HAR! HAR! HAR!
your play was ...a wise strategy against so much superior player,
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.
I wouldn’t call Reshevsky drawish, just predictable. He was never up-to-date on openings and was not aware we were following current (for the day) opening theory.
In 1979 I though he was old. Today I’m less inclined to think so.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon Fire[/b]I can't say I am concerned by these statements. This user is trying to say they use an engine to learn improved moves and they go into a database for later use. They even say they don't have many of these moves, but for some reason these moves are to blame for this user 'looking' like an engine user.
I am a bit concerned by the following in D_U_N_Es posting
[b]"... 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 thought members were given the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't seem the case here.
When it comes down to games being played, how often are you still in data in middle to end game play? Not as often as this user would like you to believe. Otherwise, Chess is almost done and all the games have been played, logged, and we may as well pack our bags. The decision of the game mods are not based on a move here or there and a game here or there.
There is benefit of the doubt, but when evidence piles up... no doubt remains. Removing a player is not an easy task or decision, and is certainly not not done haphazardly.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitBelieve it or not, this game is book from beginning to end.
When it comes down to games being played, how often are you still in data in middle to end game play? Not as often as this user would like you to believe.
P-[/b]
Game 3223515
1 edit
Originally posted by giantrobotI like when a sucker follows lost data.
Believe it or not, this game is book from beginning to end.
Game 3223515
I've seen draw games like this also.
P-
Edit! In other words, I can believe it... but I wouldn't say this happens 'often'.
Originally posted by PhlabibitAnyone but dutch and I might have felt bad. I notice he removed his "if you play the French I will crush you!" statement after this game:
I like when a sucker follows lost data.
I've seen draw games like this also.
P-
Game 3535428
Anyway, there is an interesting discussion on ICCF:
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=445
Given that everyone seems to use 'assistance' there I feel good to get get a win or even a draw in my games at ICCF. Normal time controls of 10/50 accumulating help though.
Originally posted by giantrobotit now reads "if you play the french and have a super low rating/brain spasm i will crush you!!!"
Anyone but dutch and I might have felt bad. I notice he removed his "if you play the French I will crush you!" statement after this game:
Game 3535428
Anyway, there is an interesting discussion on ICCF:
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=445
Given that everyone seems to use 'assistance' there I feel good to get get a win or even a draw in my games at ICCF. Normal time controls of 10/50 accumulating help though.
Originally posted by GatecrasherWait a minute... earlier you tell us that MANY games are used to determine if a person is cheating. NOW you tell us that ONE MOVE is all it takes! Well pardon me, but I do not accept that even one game is enough to prove a cheater.
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 [b]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.[/b]
I'm really starting to lose faith in your ability guy.
Originally posted by giantrobotIt would be nice if there were a chess site online where everyone agreed they didn't need to use chess engines to get to the top. ICCF uses engines, but I don't have time for that kind of play. I know there are people with more time and a better computer as well as more chess knowledge and raw tactical skill. I don't want to upgrade my computer and purchase the strongest engine just to compete online.
Anyone but dutch and I might have felt bad. I notice he removed his "if you play the French I will crush you!" statement after this game:
Game 3535428
Anyway, there is an interesting discussion on ICCF:
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=445
Given that everyone seems to use 'assistance' there I feel good to get get a win or even a draw in my games at ICCF. Normal time controls of 10/50 accumulating help though.
As for mixing chess and engine use... I don't care if someone enjoys that as a side, but RHP would like to be a place for people to play without an engine helping or deciding their next move. When I teach my son chess, I don't want him thinking he needs a laptop computer to help him decide his next move. The person should use their brain and history in CC chess, and his brains alone in OTB.
Will we ever get to a point where people play an OTB game with a laptop next to them and a timer? I hope not, but why not? People could bring their laptops to the park for a game against their other buddy plugging moves from the computer to the board and slapping the clock.
I'm sure many standers by would be rather impressed with their skills.
P-
Originally posted by masscatwhat a bummer. it doesn't seem very fair to exclude qualified players by making it financially impossible for ordinary people to play. if it was just another tournament with good prizes, it could be justifiable as an elite gathering, a high roller tournament. but when it's supposed to be about who's the best in the nation... it sounds like a scam. 😞
I’ll have you know I qualified for the US Championship this year. OK, so my rating is crap and I haven’t played OTB for 20 years. But they are offering “Patron Entry Fees” of up to $50,000 this year. If I mortgaged my house or maxed out a couple credit cards I COULD come up with $40,000 and they would let me play. So I’m qualified. HAR! HAR! HAR!
nevertheless, congrats on the qualification!
Originally posted by ArrakisHe didn't say a person was removed from the site based on a single move. He was saying there are examples of cheats who made SUPER BLATANT moves on top of the evidence collected. Case in point, a high rated player taking a draw move against someone rated hundreds of points lower.
Wait a minute... earlier you tell us that MANY games are used to determine if a person is cheating. NOW you tell us that ONE MOVE is all it takes! Well pardon me, but I do not accept that even one game is enough to prove a cheater.
I'm really starting to lose faith in your ability guy.
That was not the defining point, but it sure is a chuckle.
P-
Originally posted by ArrakisUmm, that's not what he said at all, fella.
Wait a minute... earlier you tell us that MANY games are used to determine if a person is cheating. NOW you tell us that ONE MOVE is all it takes! Well pardon me, but I do not accept that even one game is enough to prove a cheater.
I'm really starting to lose faith in your ability guy.
He said that if somebody only uses an engine to decide 1 move, then he has cheated (Game mod knowledge or not). You don't disagree with this I assume?
I'm sure Gatecrasher will accept your apologies like a gent.
D
3 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitI can certainly agree that engine matches scored in the middle or end game are (or at least should be) significantly more damning than matches scored whilst in the opening as in the former case there is a good chance those matches were achieved as a result of legitimate past analysis whilst that clearly is not possible in the middle and end game.
This user is trying to say they use an engine to learn improved moves and they go into a database for later use. They even say they don't have many of these moves, but for some reason these moves are to blame for this user 'looking' like an engine user.
When it comes down to games being played, how often are you still in data in middle to end game play ...[text shortened]... The decision of the game mods are not based on a move here or there and a game here or there.
In the end game of course matches can come up that are simply bad, pointless moves, that either simply delay mate (maybe even by pointlessly giving up material) or waste opportunity because the winning or drawing line is behond the computer horizon.
I can think of 2 games (both draws) I have played here where exactly that happened. In the first I had a K & 5 pawns against K, B & 3 pawns but I could not save my last pawns. Then I realised I could give up all 5 pawns just for 2 of his as that left him a B & RP (of the wrong colour) and I could get my King back. An easy draw and I could force it. Putting it on Fritz, after the game, and it is about 10 moves before Fritz changes its assessment from -5 to 0. In the second I had 2N and 2P (1 on the 6th rank and supported by my King) vs R & P. Fritz subsequently rated this about +3 but suggested lines that would have allowed my opponent to sacrifice his Rook for my last 2 pawns never spotting that if this happened it would immediately be drawn. My play was obviously determined by my need to use my Ns to shield those last pawns as I tried to shepherd them through (and failed).
If any person played the losing / drawing moves in those 2 games this would, in my opinion, be a strong indicator of engine use and I can think of a load of similar examples in the end game. In fact it is in endgame play where the most significant indicators of engine use are likely to be found either because the computer cannot grasp the correct plan or because (as a result of tablebases being used) it grasps it too perfectly.
In the middle game move perfect tactics that start with a difficult to see 1st move can also be a strong indicator. Move perfect tactics that start with obvious sacrifices prove nothing much as although a human may not have seen it all correctly at the start they may as the combination progresses (although over many games expect the occasional error).
In the opening matches mean far less. For example in the recent Grob tournament I decided I was going to play an obscure black defense (Nh3). My 3 books on the Grob had a little but not much on this so before the tournament started I sat down and aided by Fritz analysed out the first 12 moves of as many lines I could. Then I played them. After round 1 I analysed out new lines I had faced ready for round 2. This was legitimate engine use and it helped me get the first dozen moves of these games correct and the matches prove nothing.
Of course the mods may say to us that they realise all these things and that they don't make undue inferences from matches in the opening but do make those inferences when the same continues to happen in the middle or end game. If that is the case here then they have it 100% right as no one can "learn" middle game / end game play from an engine without actually using an engine.
Originally posted by Dragon FireAgreed. In my analysis of a recent game Fritz gave me a slight advantage insisting on a double attack on f7. Instead I sac’d on f7 and it gave me a minus score but after a few minutes changed its evaluation to a winning advantage. It didn’t realize that with Black’s Q-side pieces undeveloped, sac’ing the N gave a winning attack.
...the computer cannot grasp the correct plan... a human may not have seen it all correctly at the start they may as the combination progresses (although over many games expect the occasional error).
In another game Fritz had me at a minus score and evaluated it even worse after I traded my good B for a N leaving White with the 2 B’s. What Fritz did not realize was a few moves after the trade we ended up with White having a good B and bad B vs. a good B and well-placed N plus I had eliminated a weak P in the process. A few moves after the trade it completely changed its evaluation.
If we can realize these things it’s easy to understand why genuinely strong CC players don’t mind if their opponent’s are relying solely on computers to generate moves. As long as they avoid tactical situations home computers, given only a few minutes reflection time, do not always evaluate positions correctly. A really strong master will be able to cope as long as they avoid tactical errors. The problem of course is that until users have reached that level they have unfairly taken advantage of a lot of people.
It’s generally accepted that the top CC players use computers to double check their moves but not generate them…most will freely admit it. I have no problem with people who use engines. Just go to a site that allows it. One caveat: if you’re a 1500 w/engine, don’t expect to beat a 2200 w/engine on those sites. Don’t expect me to be interested in playing over the games because I’m not. I hate seeing annotations that say “Fritz recommends (insert a string of moves).” As much as possible I want to see verbal explanations of why a move is good or bad. If a person can't do that, they aren't annotating.