Originally posted by Loose ScrewWho would expect that? I might expect that if the person is really brazen or stupid. Most abuse is designed to be undetectable, or at least not too obvious. Most abuse is selective.
I mean you would expect from a che@ter that he only get wins a couple of draws and almost no losses.
Please, ask my friends (we work in the same company) “TaGaDa”, “Lenoirdevinci”, “deesse1”, “bastes2”, “Dadoo” and “marcb0872” and also my dad “marlin bleu”; They know me better than other RHP users, they saw me everyday in front of my computer playing chess, they know that I’m not using any chess engine and that I am not a cheater.You could let TaGaDA know i've never yet lost a game where I have 3 connected past pawns and I'm not interested in accepting his draw offer.
Game 2492391
Originally posted by GatecrasherWell, why else would you che@t, then to get that winning move(s)?
Who would expect that? I might expect that if the person is really brazen or stupid. Most abuse is designed to be undetectable, or at least not too obvious. Most abuse is selective.
I mean, would you che@t to lose or get a draw? What is the logic in that?
If most abuse is selective, then I presume that the tournamentgames in the last round(s) are the ones that are suspecious?
Or am I thinking to simple again?
1 edit
Originally posted by Loose ScrewDid you also ignore the bit where GauravV didn't have to beat many top players to win his tournaments whereas his clan challenge games will be against strong opponents? I win more of my tournament games than I do my clan challenge games (and I lose a number of league games where I get matched against really good players as board 1).
Well, why else would you che@t, then to get that winning move(s)?
I mean, would you che@t to lose or get a draw? What is the logic in that?
If most abuse is selective, then I presume that the tournamentgames in the last round(s) are the ones that are suspecious?
Or am I thinking to simple again?
Originally posted by XanthosNZFor my simple thoughts that would mean that everyone above a 2000 rating on this site is suspecious.
Did you also ignore the bit where GauravV didn't have to beat many top players to win his tournaments whereas his clan challenge games will be against strong opponents? I win more of my tournament games than I do my clan challenge games (and I lose a number of league games where I get matched against really good players as board 1).
btw I don't mean to accuse someone or anyone above a 2000 rating with this remark!!
Say that if I would play a game of chess against you, then one would expect that I would lose.
If I got lucky and made a great winning move (also to be found in an engine), would that made me a che@ter?
I'm just trying to find out (again) how one can pick the bad apples from the good apples.
Originally posted by Loose ScrewThe only real way is to check the matchup across a selection of games. Not a single game, I've had single games that match up 80% (And I can think of one that would matchup up 100% [only 3 moves out of book]) and I've had games that had matchups around 35%.
For my simple thoughts that would mean that everyone above a 2000 rating on this site is suspecious.
btw I don't mean to accuse someone or anyone above a 2000 rating with this remark!!
Say that if I would play a game of chess against you, then one would expect that I would lose.
If I got lucky and made a great winning move (also to be found in an en ...[text shortened]... ?
I'm just trying to find out (again) how one can pick the bad apples from the good apples.
To the untrained eye every strong player looks suspicious but eventually you start to see patterns.
Mary Ann was obvious, she couldn't complete a simple endgame (using an engine with no tablebases lol) and made some hilariously pointless moves (in a humans eyes).
There have been less obvious ones of course but really any player who is cheating is playing on borrowed time. Eventually they will be caught.
Originally posted by KirwanI was going to say something about the 1855 rating and offering a draw, but you don't appear interested in winning the game either.
I'm not interested in accepting his draw offer. Game 2492391
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat would mean that one must have an engine in your posession to check those moves.
The only real way is to check the matchup across a selection of games. Not a single game, I've had single games that match up 80% (And I can think of one that would matchup up 100% [only 3 moves out of book]) and I've had games that had matchups around 35%.
To the untrained eye every strong player looks suspicious but eventually you start to see patterns. ...[text shortened]... eally any player who is cheating is playing on borrowed time. Eventually they will be caught.
That also could mean that one could learn from that checking (Oh, I could play that sequence also) and could start playing like that engine (even if that person don't use it to play).
I'll take it that everything that stands in a chessbook is also to be found in an engine?
Originally posted by Loose ScrewI keep coming back to a simple question, "Why cheat?"
Well, why else would you che@t, then to get that winning move(s)?
I mean, would you che@t to lose or get a draw? What is the logic in that?
If most abuse is selective, then I presume that the tournamentgames in the last round(s) are the ones that are suspecious?
Or am I thinking to simple again?
1. If you are reasonably good at chess you do not need to cheat.
2. If you are not so good but want to improve you don't want to cheat.
So a che@ter will be "not so good" and not care about real improvement. He wants the kudos of being high up the rankings (top 10 probably) and winning tournaments. No point otherwise.
He is not good enough to play those early tournament rounds himself and win, surely! If he is then why not concentrate on improvement rather than che@ting. But assume for a moment that he is good enough to do this then the che@ting will be obvious as his style of play between those early rounds and the later rounds will be dramatically different. A comparison of the 2 sets of games will produce conclusive proof and it will do so quickly.
If he wants to be in the top 10 then he can afford less slips. Perhaps he cannot afford ever to play a game himself except against weak opposition. So if he does play weak opposition then again a comparison of the style of play would rapidly be conclusive. As most strong players only take on weaker opponents to help then you would expect to see constructive help and suggestions in the game messages that would point to a certain level of understanding. If he only plays strong opposition then the match with 1st and 2nd engine moves would, I presume, be improbably high otherwise he would lose. If he tries to deviate from the engine to confuse then I would assume his level of skill is such that the moves become completely pointless. We all blunder but when strong players drop a piece or miss a mate it is usually because there is a perfectly logical but flawed reason for their move. With a weaker player there is no logical reason, it is just bad.
1 edit
Originally posted by Loose ScrewNo, Engines and humans play chess differently. You can't play like an engine by looking at lots and lots of engine moves.
That would mean that one must have an engine in your posession to check those moves.
That also could mean that one could learn from that checking (Oh, I could play that sequence also) and could start playing like that engine (even if that person don't use it to play).
I'll take it that everything that stands in a chessbook is also to be found in an engine?
A human cannot possibly brute force moves the same way a computer can. The way a human would think would be looking at the position and come up with a good move strategically based on imbalances etc. A computer can be programmed to do this to an extent (identifying bad or good bishops, pawn islands etc), but even this is VERY limited.
When an engine comes up with a non-human like move, it is because it has brute forced several ply ahead and seen a tactical line that a human cannot possibly see. A human cannot acquire that ability.
The way a human can beat a computer is by making very subtle strategical moves that constantly improve their position (I don't have that ability, but aware of how stronger players can). The computer then realised it has lost when it "sees" the tactical lines that leads to it getting mated, but by then it is too late.
That is why practicing with an engine might improve your tactical ability, but would not be good for improving your overall strategy.
Originally posted by Loose ScrewCheating isn't very logical at all. Logically, there is just no point to it.
Well, why else would you che@t, then to get that winning move(s)?
I mean, would you che@t to lose or get a draw? What is the logic in that?
Psychologically, however...
When people cheat it is not necessarily to win every game and to be the "best". More often it is to create an illusion of worthiness, to bridge the gap between their actual ability and how they would like others to perceive them. Anything that promotes that illusion is therefore pursued.
The real question is not "why do they cheat?" but "what is the impression they wish to give?"
Clearly, they would like to give the impression of being a strong, competant player. But they also don't want to give the impression that they are cheating.
How they go about balancing those two ends, the extent to which they go, and how effectively they succeed, will vary greatly from instance to instance.
But game moderators are not psychologists or profilers. We are concerned only with gathering evidence of engine abuse and judging whether, at the end of our investigation, a player has violated the terms of service. This is something we cannot do unless there is overwhelming evidence of abuse. The bar has been set very high. The site admins have absolutley nothing to gain from banning the innocent.
Originally posted by lauseyA couple of points. Characteristic engine moves don't occur when the engine finds a tactic the human can't they occur when the engine can't find anything good to play so it shuffles a useless piece for no apparent reason. Someone will be able to dig up that classic game Mary Ann played where she shuffled pieces around mindlessly (almost leading to a threefold repetition while winning) and then couldn't convert a simple endgame. It's a good example of how humans don't play chess.
No, Engines and humans play chess differently. You can't play like an engine by looking at lots and lots of engine moves.
A human cannot possibly brute force moves the same way a computer can. The way a human would think would be looking at the position and come up with a good move strategically based on imbalances etc. A computer can be programmed to do t ...[text shortened]... ht improve your tactical ability, but would not be good for improving your overall strategy.
Engines are great at tactics (with the proviso that they resolve within the horizon of the search) but they aren't very good at all at positional play. Humans can play tactics that engines can't see (see Kasparov-Topalov 1999 20. Rxd4!! http://www.chesscafe.com/text/yaz25.pdf) but the real strength of engines isn't in the tactics they spot but the fact that they don't miss tactics. Even at the top level many games are decided by blunders (see Kramnik v Topalov World Championship Match) and engines don't make the kind of blunders that humans make (for whatever reason [positional blindness, tiredness etc.]). Of course comparing engine chess to human chess is like comparing calculator math with human math. They are completely different things. One is focused on mistake-free fast calculation and the other on inspiration and breaking new theoretical ground.
The way to beat a computer is to close the position completely and play plans that fall outside of the search depth. Boris Alterman is an utter master of this (See what is known as the Alterman Wall game). Playing against engines regularly isn't nearly as useful as playing against even reasonable human opposition. The ideas you encounter aren't new and innovative. Engines don't play psychological chess, they don't set traps (a trap being a disadvantageous move that gives the opponent a chance to blunder), they don't let you play your masterful tactical shots (because they saw them too) and they will just play what they consider the objectively best move until you make a mistake.
I have one draw against Fritz at full strength (and maybe 100 losses mostly trying out new novelties). I came up with an interesting novelty (which I'm keeping mum on for now, someone someday will get a surprise) which let me control the game for a while and then closed the position until there was no way through at all (maybe 26 pieces still on the board). It's not really meaningful in the slightest. I think I could get most people to the point that they could draw an engine under correspondence time controls.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyand this is how it happens:
The way a human can beat a computer is by making very subtle strategical moves that constantly improve their position (I don't have that ability, but aware of how stronger players can). The computer then realised it has lost when it "sees" the tactical lines that leads to it getting mated, but by then it is too late.
[Event "Man-Machine World Chess Championship"]
[Site "New York Athletic Club, Manhattan"]
[Date "2003.11.16"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "X3D Fritz (Computer)"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "90"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 6. c5 Nbd7 7. b4 a5 8. b5 e5 9. Qa4 Qc7 10. Ba3 e4 11. Nd2 Be7 12. b6 Qd8
13. h3 O-O 14. Nb3 Bd6 15. Rb1 Be7 16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4 Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6 23.
Kd1 Be6 24. Kc1 Rd8 25. Rc2 Nbd7 26. Kb2 Nf8 27. a4 Ng6 28. a5 Ne7 29. a6 bxa6 30. Na5 Rdb8 31. g3 Bg5 32. Bg2 Qg6 33. Ka1
Kh8 34. Na2 Bd7 35. Bc3 Ne8 36. Nb4 Kg8 37. Rb1 Bc8 38. Ra2 Bh6 39. Bf1 Qe6 40. Qd1 Nf6 41. Qa4 Bb7 42. Nxb7 Rxb7 43. Nxa6
Qd7 44. Qc2 Kh8 45. Rb3 1-0
and there wasn't even anything particularly subtle about it. a human can easily see the queenside attack is coming, but a computer doesn't have a clue about it until it's too late.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodCool!
and this is how it happens:
[Event "Man-Machine World Chess Championship"]
[Site "New York Athletic Club, Manhattan"]
[Date "2003.11.16"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "X3D Fritz (Computer)"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "90"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 ing, but a computer doesn't have a clue about it until it's too late.
Illustrated what Xanthos and I pointed out quite nicely (although Xanthos explained it far better than I did).
Seems like Kasparov steadily choked Fritz's position (with that strong pawn chain) until Fritz was very limited in options. Kasparov could then go for the kill.
EDIT: If Kasparov played like that against another grandmaster, he would get crushed.
