20 Jun 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI know that alot of moves may match, but ALL of them?
Of course not. Often there is only one move that makes sense (and sometimes only one move is possible). Most of the best players here have 60%+ match ups with computers. That doesn't mean they cheat. It just means they are making good moves.
20 Jun 05
Sorry I somehow missed the word in capitals.
It depends on the sample size. Is it one game? Or a number of games? Does the player make computer-only moves (moves that don't make sense to a human)? Does the player make human-only moves (moves that a computer doesn't find)?
There are a lot of variables.
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI understand that. And I am an average player, so most of the moves don't make sense to me.
Sorry I somehow missed the word in capitals.
It depends on the sample size. Is it one game? Or a number of games? Does the player make computer-only moves (moves that don't make sense to a human)? Does the player make human-only moves (moves that a computer doesn't find)?
There are a lot of variables.
20 Jun 05
1 edit
Well if they match in the endgame, I am pretty sure they are using. In the opening stages computer programs often refer to databases so the player may be using the same database too, and there's nothing wrong if the moves match. In the middle they may have good calculating power, and thus match the processing depth of the program /though this is doubtful/. But in the endgame phase, well, computer programs just don't cut it yet (great depth, no strategical planning); so if your opponents is making moves that a computer program would recommend, and most of the time these are not the best moves, then clearly he is either using unauthorized help, or his endgame technique needs improvement.
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10
I know that alot of moves may match, but ALL of them?
I figure that a really good player could match up with all of them. The opening is quite obvious to match up. Middle game very likely to if the best moves are limited and the end game would just have limited possibilities again. If most good players match up 60% to 80% of the time, then it isn't impossible for some to match up 100% of the time in some games. It all depends on the position and how "obvious" the best moves are in a particular game.
I suppose it would be more suspicious if your opponent left the book early and matched up to a computer every time after that. There are also certain styles of play that a computer plays differently. Computers also seem to play bad in closed positions. Overall, I don't think there is any easy way of knowing if your opponent is cheating. Hence being a huge subject of debate on these forums.
20 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Alpha10Why? They could be using the database on www.chesslive.de. That's perfectly legal in the rules. They may not know the name because from memory that database doesn't give it.
I knew that openings were easily matched, but when an 1100 player plays a certain opening and the following lines to a T, and can't tell me what it was when I ask, that's when the alarm goes off.
If they leave known lines and start making odd looking moves then perhaps there would be grounds. But the only real way to check is to wait until the game is over and analyse with an engine.
EDIT: And even that is far from perfect at identifying someone.
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Why? They could be using the database on www.chesslive.de. That's perfectly legal in the rules. They may not know the name because from memory that database doesn't give it.
If they leave known lines and start making odd looking moves then perhaps there would be grounds. But the only real way to check is to wait until the game is over and analyse with an engine.
EDIT: And even that is far from perfect at identifying someone.
Yes, even slightly experienced players could play known openings without even realising it.
For example, when I was starting to learn chess properly and got my first piece of chess advice. I was advised to open with the centre pawns and play knights before bishops. This caused me to play the Italian Game for a while before I even knew what it was called.
There are also some openings that I played which I did actually learn, but forgot the names (or did not find out the name till later).
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by fexkornThat's exactly what I was thinking.
if you know your opponent's moves are matching a computer's moves then you need to change your claim in your profile.
Personally, I'll never know if somebody uses an engine against me; as I own NO engine software.
While your game definitely sounds suspicious; I sure hope it is not "in-progress"; otherwise, how do you know the moves are matching up? You aren't analyzing a game in progress are you?
--tmetzler
20 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by tmetzlerWhen moves don't make sense to me, I put them on a board in Chessbase, and look through it several times to see if I can determine what my opponent was thinking. After severeal of these 'questionable' moves, I go through the game with an analysis engine on.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Personally, I'll never know if somebody uses an engine against me; as I own NO engine software.
While your game definitely sounds suspicious; I sure hope it is not "in-progress"; otherwise, how ...[text shortened]... You aren't analyzing a game in progress are you?
--tmetzler
On my profile it says I don't USE computers or books. Technically, since I don't analyze most games until the end, I don't USE computers or books.