30 Apr '11 23:58>
Originally posted by VarenkaI remember the figure of 60% (or thereabouts) for first choice match up being bandied about as some kind of threshold for engine use. Of course, if you are matching top two or three rather than first choice you already have some variation in the moves played. My engine plays 1. Nf3, yours wants to play 1. e4 but your engine's second or third choice is 1. Nf3 gives you a match although our engines actually want to play completely different games.
You're avoiding the question.
You try to claim that engine analysis varies greatly, but yet it is fundamental that the same analysis can be reproduced as part of the "top 3 matchup" method. i.e. if a cheat uses an engine to suggest Nf3, then I need to get my engine to do likewise in order to gather evidence (sure, not on every move, but on a high enough ...[text shortened]... o greatly for another person to also produce the same analysis. This contradicts the above.
I actually tried this as an experiment a while ago. I played a match between two engines without opening books. Although the games tended to start out with the same moves (both engines had a rather dull liking for the Petroff) no pair of games matched after relatively few moves. That 40% first choice non-match was quite sufficient to lead the games down differing paths.