Originally posted by KeplerI haven't used Fritz 8 for about a year since I got Fritz 10. I have compared the results of the two and the differences are minimal.
No. I did not use either version of Fritz but at least one person does use Fritz 8 to analyse sthe games of suspected engine users. Should something else be used instead? I am serious here, the advice that is usually trotted out is to analyse the suspect games using 30 seconds per move and recording the top three choices. No mention is made of which particula ...[text shortened]... engines should be used or not used maybe you should make it available to those who do this work.
Originally posted by smaiaBut we do not know whether or not they use a computer to assist in the ICCF games.
It would be interesting to analyze the games of strong GMs that play CC such as the veteran grandmaster Ulf Andersson from Sweden. He is an active player at ICCF. Also, GM Rafael Leitao of Brazil plays there.
Originally posted by YugaIt is your claim that the ceiling is slightly higher. You've presented zero actual evidence to support said claim.
I agree but I don't know how high that ceiling is and I am not sure if anybody else knows how high that ceiling could be theoretically since no human plays perfect chess. I don't know if anybody has done a simulation which extrapolates the matchup of a human to an engine given that the human plays perfect chess.
The highest matchups for first-move were Anan ...[text shortened]... and Fischer at 62% in Gatecrasher's analysis. Theoretically the ceiling is slightly higher.
Originally posted by GatecrasherTrue, but I would presume Ulf would not use engines, after all what's the point? In the early 80s he was 4th in the world. He won several top GM tournments always using only his brain. I think he does not even care whether his opponents use engines or not. He will beat them either way. He has an ultra-positional style that engines have a hard time handling.
But we do not know whether or not they use a computer to assist in the ICCF games.
Originally posted by smaiaThere is some speculation that the nature of correspondence chess has changed somewhat since engine use became prevalent. Before the use of engines many CC players used ferociously tactical openings, the Evans Gambit for example, to produce horrendous complications. The idea seemed to be to try to out calculate the opponent, something which is possible using analysis boards and keeping copious notes. Since the advent of engine use this practice seems to have died out, probably because anyone using an engine to do the calculations is going to win that kind of debate. That might explain the ultra positional style. It would be interesting to know if he always played that way or just went that way later in life.
True, but I would presume Ulf would not use engines, after all what's the point? In the early 80s he was 4th in the world. He won several top GM tournments always using only his brain. I think he does not even care whether his opponents use engines or not. He will beat them either way. He has an ultra-positional style that engines have a hard time handling.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you have any difficulty detecting the use of engines other than Fritz 8 when you were using Fritz 8?
I haven't used Fritz 8 for about a year since I got Fritz 10. I have compared the results of the two and the differences are minimal.
Do you have any difficulty now you use Fritz 10?
There should be an effect if one is matching engine to same engine. I can detect games played by HIARCS with ease if I use HIARCS but I would have thought that I should still get some kind of signal if using another engine indicative of the presence of HIARCS.
Originally posted by GatecrasherObviously not which is a good thing. If I do the same thing with the figures I obtained the results are even worse. Fortunately I am not trying to detect engine use or set a threshold above which a human cannot go. Looking at your data, there is overlap between humans and engines but the distribution appears bimodal. That is what I expected to find in my own data but did not.
So are match up rates using one engine effective at detecting the use of other engines?
Of course the fun and games starts with working out how to determine if an individual is using an engine beyond all reasonable doubt. The devil is in that overlap!
Here's an interesting thing. My version of Glaurung appears to be non-deterministic. In other words, I can get different answers if I repeat an analysis of a game even using the same time controls etc. This only becomes apparent in positions where there are several approximately equal moves. It appears that a small random number is added to the scores of each candidate move. I am not sure if this is built into the engine or the interface at present.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWe already know that high match up rate alone is not necessarily sufficient. See the first post in this thread if you doubt me. I suppose we can infer from the lack of a ban that there is still reasonable doubt.
Easy. High match-up rates. How many times do you need this pointed out to you? 🙄
I thought you had given up on your attempt to convert me. Why the change of mind?
Originally posted by KeplerHigh match-up rates are sufficient, just that those apparently are not high enough. Again, I have to point out the obvious to you. 😵
We already know that high match up rate alone is not necessarily sufficient. See the first post in this thread if you doubt me. I suppose we can infer from the lack of a ban that there is still reasonable doubt.
I thought you had given up on your attempt to convert me. Why the change of mind?
Originally posted by PalynkaThat seems contrary to opinions expressed by others who seem more knowledgeable on this subject than both you and I. However, I am willing to entertain the idea that you may have inside knowledge of how the cheat detection process works. If you do, I don't think it is wise to broadcast it in here.
High match-up rates are sufficient, just that those apparently are not high enough. Again, I have to point out the obvious to you. 😵