chess engines

RJHinds is the new Skeeter.

I still think I could beat him OTB.

Fat lady's graph looks a lot like RJHINDs , I'm so far down the food chain that I couldn't tell how a better player beats me , but if there is no statistical proof RJHIND is a cheat I'd lay off him , what if he doesn't cheat , what does that make you lot.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Fat lady's graph looks a lot like RJHINDs , I'm so far down the food chain that I couldn't tell how a better player beats me , but if there is no statistical proof RJHIND is a cheat I'd lay off him , what if he doesn't cheat , what does that make you lot.

I would like to make it clear that no offence was meant to be made to fat lady , I was just comparing graphs .

RH and Fat Lady are the same person.

Fat Lady slips into RJ mode just to wind us up. 🙂

Actually now I think about it....

Fat Lady has an OTB grade of 2000+ and is a highly rec'd chess coach.

Maybe 'The Instructor' was a Freudian Slip.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I stand corrected. I did not remember it that way. I am indeed a liar and in need of forgiveness. I will make a note of that and will discontinue my posts on the Chess Forum. Thank you. Are you willing to forgive me?

The Instructor

Perhaps Fritz posted it.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Fat lady's graph looks a lot like RJHINDs , I'm so far down the food chain that I couldn't tell how a better player beats me , but if there is no statistical proof RJHIND is a cheat I'd lay off him , what if he doesn't cheat , what does that make you lot.

Statistical proof is sooo last year. The problem with RJ is that from a chess perspective every time the mouth opens the foot goes in.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Statistical proof is sooo last year. The problem with RJ is that from a chess perspective every time the mouth opens the foot goes in.

The initial question is quite interesting for computers certainly dont play chess like humans, but if you have seen any of the latest super GMs games you will discern that humans are playing more and more like computers.

What i have observed from my own experience playing against computers is that they make the most forcing moves with little regard to positional concepts, thus they will play positionally weakening moves if it can make a forcing sequence, even if it weakens for example the Kings position, for they have calculated the sequence and know that its safe despite its weakening appearance to a human.

It was this which prompted me to really wonder about chess, if it was possible to play forcing moves all the time. Checks being the most forcing, captures next, then attacking moves and then moves which prepare to attack something.

another thing that I observed was that the computers i play against very rarely make prophylactic moves, although this is not an indication of all computers, but probably my weak play, but it was an observation after going through Capablancas games on chessgames.com, for Capablanca I observed made many prophylactic moves.

the only computer i can beat up is sparkchess.com

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If their play matches a top engine's moves too often, they probably are using them. It's true that this method will only catch the more blatant cheats. But what else can you do?

I think Russ should be able to turn up at your house randomly and conduct a spot check. Anyone who is out or if Russ is sent away by their Mum should be automatically banned.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The initial question is quite interesting for computers certainly dont play chess like humans, but if you have seen any of the latest super GMs games you will discern that humans are playing more and more like computers...

This idea often crops up, although I've yet to find any proof which supports it...
A few months ago I went to chessgames.com & looked at Carlsen's games & selected games under the following criteria:
20 most recently completed vs top players (lowest rated being Gawain Jones FIDE 2632) which all have at least 20 non-theory moves.  To be fair, I avoided all the blitz games.
The match rates didn't surprise me.  They were consistent with what I'd expect the best unassisted OTB player to achieve.
 
The analysis of non-theory moves was done using the usual method to create benchmarks & also find cheats:
Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash Table:256Mb Time:30s per ply Max Depth:20ply
Using the system:
AMD Phenom x4 2.30 Ghz
4GB RAM

Carlsen {20 games}
{ Top 1 Match: 477/828 ( 57.6% )  Opponents: 452/821 ( 55.1% )
{ Top 2 Match: 617/828 ( 74.5% )  Opponents: 594/821 ( 72.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 690/828 ( 83.3% )  Opponents: 667/821 ( 81.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 732/828 ( 88.4% )  Opponents: 709/821 ( 86.4% )

I'm waiting for a thread on the best chess engines out right now... I don't believe many people on this / any site copy moves from a computer - Now and then I play a computer, enter the game into a pgn writer, then post on here, its quite laborious I wouldn't do it for every game on here, it seems very unlikely that many would...

Agree that master chess will get more computeresque - I think computers are editing opening theory a lot these days...

Originally posted by e4chris
I'm waiting for a thread on the best chess engines out right now... I don't believe many people on this / any site copy moves from a computer - Now and then I play a computer, enter the game into a pgn writer, then post on here, its quite laborious I wouldn't do it for every game on here, it seems very unlikely that many would...

Agree that master chess will get more computeresque - I think computers are editing opening theory a lot these days...

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it is laborious to use a computer to find moves to play on RHP? Because that is very very easy - you just copy the PGN, paste into the engine, and it's done.

I haven't studied top GM games, but it would surprise me if humans are playing more like computers. We can no more learn to play chess like a computer than we can learn to fly by watching a 747. We just work differently.

Originally posted by aquatabby
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it is laborious to use a computer to find moves to play on RHP? Because that is very very easy - you just copy the PGN, paste into the engine, and it's done.

I haven't studied top GM games, but it would surprise me if humans are playing more like computers. We can no more learn to play chess like a computer than we can learn to fly by watching a 747. We just work differently.

its easy alright for 1 game, but every move in every game? even if you wanted to you'd need a secretary

Originally posted by e4chris
its easy alright for 1 game, but every move in every game? even if you wanted to you'd need a secretary

It would certainly be quicker than thinking about the move! I'm not sure how much time I spend on average on each move ... maybe 5-10 minutes spread over 3-4 days, at a guess. Using an engine would take about 30 seconds. Just Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, wait 30 seconds, then pick the engine's top move, go back to the browser, and enter it.

Admittedly it would be rather dull, but that's another matter.

If I put my fritz on 1800 , how long would it take before I'm found out.

Originally posted by Zygalski
This idea often crops up, although I've yet to find any proof which supports it...
A few months ago I went to chessgames.com & looked at Carlsen's games & selected games under the following criteria:
20 most recently completed vs top players (lowest rated being Gawain Jones FIDE 2632) which all have at least 20 non-theory moves.  To be fair, I avoided all ...[text shortened]... )  Opponents: 667/821 ( 81.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 732/828 ( 88.4% )  Opponents: 709/821 ( 86.4% )

thank goodness, a sane reply amidst all the RJHinds furore, what I mean is, if you go to a site like chessbomb.com and observe one of the games, say Carlsen v Kamsky, Carlsen did not, according to the computer evaluation make a sub optimal move the entire game. His choice may not have been the computers first choice, second or even third (more often or not it was though) but it was not a suboptimal move either. Thus it appears to me that a purely statistical evaluation based upon percentages of first, second, third or fourth do not tell the entire picture, or the designation, optimal/suboptimal is based upon a different set of parameters.