Engine question

How does RHP determine if someone is using one?

Top 3 match-up is one method.
There's nothing to stop you doing some high quality analysis yourself if you like.
Here's a guide:
Thread 114715

I was once told that if you see a wee grean light next to someone's
name then that means the RHP 'Spy System' has detected an engine
is in use.

Hmmm.... Engineers

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Top 3 match-up is one method

Originally posted by atticus2
I have my doubts about this method - although no proposals for a better one. I'm not a statistician so bear with me.

First, if someone is using an engine, why would they not have a near perfect 'top 1' match-up? In other words, why would a committed engine-user select from 'top 3' when 'top 1' is available? OK, maybe some match-ups indicate this very thi profile, and no subscription, I have all the evidence I need 😀

It doesn't take a genius to see that no player could get average results in many games with 20 non-database moves of
top 1 match = 60%
top 2 match = 75%
top 3 match = 85%
(all 3 figures)

so ask yourself what good reason is there that a player should play so much more like an engine than this unless they aren't using one?

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
It doesn't take a genius to see that no player could get average results in many games with 20 non-database moves of
top 1 match = 60%
top 2 match = 75%
top 3 match = 85%
(all 3 figures)

so ask yourself what good reason is there that a player should play so much more like an engine than this unless they aren't using one?

Originally posted by atticus2
First, if someone is using an engine, why would they not have a near perfect 'top 1' match-up? In other words, why would a committed engine-user select from 'top 3' when 'top 1' is available? OK, maybe some match-ups indicate this very thing. But I guess generally, the match-ups correlate with 'top 3'.

I have been told that my matchup rates correspond closely with what Games Moderators here have found.
I know for a fact that they have also used Shredder & Rybka in analysis.
That tends to suggest that whilst there are indeed differences between engines (& the systems they are used on) any of these 3000 ELO or thereabouts rated programs on a reasonably strong pc looking at many games over time will generate very similar results.

Originally posted by atticus2
...But my third point still stands for the moment. Answering it myself, perhaps it might have force in a given game, but is unlikely to hold up over a sufficiently large series

I feel proud and a little bit humble to be part of a site where the top players regularly outperform Kramnik, Topov, Alekhine, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky and Estrin. I guess it shows how much chess has "evolved" in the last decade or so.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
It doesn't take a genius to see that no player could get average results in many games with 20 non-database moves of
top 1 match = 60%
top 2 match = 75%
top 3 match = 85%
(all 3 figures)

so ask yourself what good reason is there that a player should play so much more like an engine than this unless they aren't using one?

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I feel proud and a little bit humble to be part of a site where the top players regularly outperform Kramnik, Topov, Alekhine, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky and Estrin. I guess it shows how much chess has "evolved" in the last decade or so.

OK, another methodological query comes to find. Take the Fischer-Spassky game cited above, In c 30% of relevant moves, players chose outside the 'top 3'. This sounds like a big deal, but of course may not be if, say, the 'top 5' are separated by small centi-pawns. Equally, a 'top 1' pick is less of a deal if it's the only sensibly strong move.