03 Nov '06 16:56>
im shocked i think he was a real player but oh well....what do i know.
Originally posted by lauseyYes, also this would pick up on people legitimately analysing finished games with an engine. I've analysed a few of the banned players games in the past to see if I agreed with the verdict, and it's pretty clear in the cases I checked that one or both players were using engines.
A minor point as you revealed it wouldn't be a viable option anyway, but cookies cannot detect what applications you are running.
A cookie file is just pure data which websites can read/create/modify. Unless software applications are specifically programmed to create or modify certain cookies (which I very much doubt Fritz or any other chess engine will do ...[text shortened]... ne's PC to install executable code (which can possibly detect what applications are running).
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere could be a way that it will work using cookies, but not be practical. Just mentioning this for argument sake. 😉
Yes, also this would pick up on people legitimately analysing finished games with an engine. I've analysed a few of the banned players games in the past to see if I agreed with the verdict, and it's pretty clear in the cases I checked that one or both players were using engines.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI had a recent K&Q vs K&R ending that I eventually won after about 25 moves due to a blunder by my opponent. My book on end games by Averback clearly had this as a win and I was studying this furiously and slowly getting there. To win required creating Zugswang repeatedly by transposing from a position in which white had the move to an identical position in which black had the move.
Match up rates in themselves don't really tell you all that much, I'm pretty convinced most people on this site will agree with Fritz or Crafty or whatever on what move to play next in this position:
[fen]4k3/7R/4K3/8/8/8/8/8[/fen]
I assume that the games mods have some way of assessing how easy a move is to find - where the example above counts as ...[text shortened]... effort into the games, and its annoying that my work was wasted on an imbecile with an engine.
Originally posted by Dragon FireEngines are pants at minimal material endgames, basically the tree pruning algorithm relies on finding moves that are so poor it can quickly work out that it doesn't need to calculate their consequences. In the case of K+Q v K+ R almost every position evaluates to the same score of +4 (depending on what value the engine gives to the queen and rook) as a consequence of which the engine has to search every line of play including patently ridiculous ones and if the checkmate is further away than whatever its search depth is it won't find it.
I had a recent K&Q vs K&R ending that I eventually won after about 25 moves due to a blunder by my opponent. My book on end games by Averback clearly had this as a win and I was studying this furiously and slowly getting there. To win required creating Zugswang repeatedly by transposing from a position in which white had the move to an identical position ...[text shortened]... not play on in such circumstances although again most would need a tablebase to actually win it.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtUnless the engine has access to tablebases (as long as there is a tablebase for the pieces that is left on the board), then it wouldn't even need to do any calculation.
Engines are pants at minimal material endgames, basically the tree pruning algorithm relies on finding moves that are so poor it can quickly work out that it doesn't need to calculate their consequences. In the case of K+Q v K+ R almost every position evaluates to the same score of +4 (depending on what value the engine gives to the queen and rook) as a ...[text shortened]... the number of legal moves. So it's not a surprise that Fritz couldn't find the checkmate.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugIn order to play at ICC you have to use their computer program called Blitzln, which can tell when you switch from their program to another program. A friend of mine who plays at this site got "caught" by ICC's program cause he was doing just that - had Fritz open while playing in a game at the same time.
This wouldn't be effective ( I can't comment on if it is even possible as I'm no computer expert).
We are permitted to analyse finished games in Fritz or other engines. If a player has Fritz on in the back ground doing a full analysis on a finished game whilst in another window they are continuing with their RHP games then such a system would penalise them.
Originally posted by lauseySo there are 2 ways here to conclusively find an engine abuser.
Unless the engine has access to tablebases (as long as there is a tablebase for the pieces that is left on the board), then it wouldn't even need to do any calculation.
Originally posted by Dragon FireWe probably are already deducing what methods the mods are using to catch engine abusers. 😉
So there are 2 ways here to conclusively find an engine abuser.
1. In a "minimum material endgame" that is a "book win" the computer just stumbles around and draws; or
2. If the computer does not stumble then it plays a move perfect 35 move forced win (from a tablebase).
In either case it becomes obvious that a human is not playing.
I have had ...[text shortened]... l occur regularly with a long term user but it may take 300+ games for it to become obvious.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugIndeed! Qd6 is the move just about every human says.....the engine/game move is very odd from a human perspective 🙂
Think I'd play Qd6 to threaten both the rook and Qg3+