Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough! So what we play here is more like OTB chess than postal chess. Or, I guess that's what you're saying.
As with most of your claims, you offer no evidence to support them. Rittner, Berliner, et. al. didn't play 48 games at a time. If you looked at the players' you mentioned actual moves made on RHP, you'll see they make, at a minimum, hundreds of moves per month; no CC GM would play anywhere near that many. English Tal made over 25,000 moves in his 29 mont ...[text shortened]... is known to play at several other CC sites as well as did IM31 and numerous other cheats.
Originally posted by luctrucIt's a hybrid. There's more time to analyze and you get to move the pieces around (which is frowned on OTB), so the quality of play is better than OTB. But the game load and short time controls make it somewhat less precise than old time postal. Of course, if a player wanted to, he could approximate old time postal by playing few games and playing at longer time controls. Few do, however.
Fair enough! So what we play here is more like OTB chess than postal chess. Or, I guess that's what you're saying.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, by mixing postal and OTB games in the DB, I suppose it was hoped that a P applicable to the whole "style spectrum" of RHP users could be formulated.
It's a hybrid. There's more time to analyze and you get to move the pieces around (which is frowned on OTB), so the quality of play is better than OTB. But the game load and short time controls make it somewhat less precise than old time postal. Of course, if a player wanted to, he could approximate old time postal by playing few games and playing at longer time controls. Few do, however.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe qualiity of play at the under 1400 level can be pretty bad I'm
It's a hybrid. There's more time to analyze and you get to move the pieces around (which is frowned on OTB), so the quality of play is better than OTB.
afraid. I have never seen so many Fools and Scholars Mates or
pieces simply given away at OTB games of the same level.
1400's here are much weaker than players who have 1400 OTB grade.
They are either moving too fast, are raw beginners or are just playing
for the actual fun of playing and not to bothered about improving.
(which is my polite way of saying they never learn).
Players who use this site correctly should score 200-300 pts more
than OTB grade. I of course am the exception.
My OTB grade is 2001 and my grade here is 1801.
Exactley 300 pts. the other way.
I like being 1801 - the same as my favourite piece of music by Tchaikovsky,
you know it, that one that has cannons in it. The 1801 Overture.
(surely you mean the 1812 Overture......Russ)
Yes. But Tchaikovsky started writing it in 1801.
Originally posted by greenpawn34That's some interesting maths.
My OTB grade is 2001 and my grade here is 1801.
Exactley 300 pts. the other way.
I am a horrible patzer who would fail miserably OTB, but I play slowly and use the analysis board a lot here. My guess is that the difference between OTB and here would be greater than 300 points for me if I would try it.
what its come down to for me is that the whole engine use has taken a lot of the fun out of it. an aweful number of the "skilled" players are (or have) cheated. and there is no clearcut way to round them all up, and even if they were all cought the damage has been done.
leagues are where it hurts most, and then tournaments with prizes for me...
i would like to see anyone that is caught be fined.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I agree with all that. The difference between a 1400 USCF and an RHP 1400 is striking. Then again that shouldn't be too surprising; a person who is actually taking the time and effort to attend OTB tourneys which might eat up a whole weekend is almost certainly going to be a more serious player than someone who clicks on a PC whenever he/she feels like it.
The qualiity of play at the under 1400 level can be pretty bad I'm
afraid. I have never seen so many Fools and Scholars Mates or
pieces simply given away at OTB games of the same level.
1400's here are much weaker than players who have 1400 OTB grade.
They are either moving too fast, are raw beginners or are just playing
for the actual fun of pl ...[text shortened]... rely you mean the 1812 Overture......Russ)
Yes. But Tchaikovsky started writing it in 1801.
Originally posted by no1marauderFor entities playing above a certain strength on this site, the ceiling would have to be higher than 60%. The ceiling also depends on the strength of the test engine. Gatecrasher's statistics support this claim.
It is your claim that the ceiling is slightly higher. You've presented zero actual evidence to support said claim.
But I think that 60% Top 1 Match would be sufficient to ban most but not all engine users well beyond reasonable doubt from this site even in the absence of all factors other than playing strength of the entity and test engine in question.
Originally posted by YugaThe ceiling doesn't have to be higher than 60% as that is about the top level that the best players in the history of chess, correspondence and OTB, could achieve.
For entities playing above a certain strength on this site, the ceiling would have to be higher than 60%. The ceiling also depends on the strength of the test engine. Gatecrasher's statistics support this claim.
But I think that 60% Top 1 Match would be sufficient to ban most but not all engine users well beyond reasonable doubt from this site even in the absence of all factors other than playing strength of the entity and test engine in question.
The ceiling has nothing whatsoever to do with the test engine.
Gatecrasher's stats do not support your claim that the ceiling at RHP should be above 60%.
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree because a lower match-up to a weaker engine would be indicative of engine use since weaker players have more variability in move selection.
The ceiling has nothing whatsoever to do with the test engine.
Therefore a 45% match-up Top 1 Match to a 500 rated chess engine would be indicative of engine use but 60% match-up Top 1 Match to a much stronger engine may not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt of engine use.
As chess engines get stronger, the ceiling gets higher. Yes, the ceiling will always reach a limit but it can be higher than 60% Top 1 Match in some cases.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf an entity would play at RHP consistently at an OTB 2700+ standard, and I think that two do [both in the top 30], a 60% Top 1 Match would not be sufficient to ban that entity beyond reasonable doubt against a sufficiently strong engine based on the match-up of Anand, Fischer, Aronian, Svidler, and Rittner against the test engine in Gatecrasher’s analysis if match-up rates were considered alone.
The ceiling doesn't have to be higher than 60% as that is about the top level that the best players in the history of chess, correspondence and OTB, could achieve.
Gatecrasher's stats do not support your claim that the ceiling at RHP should be above 60%.
Originally posted by YugaThat doesn't make any sense at all. Making the same assertion over and over and over again is not providing evidence to support that assertion.
I disagree because a lower match-up to a weaker engine would be indicative of engine use since weaker players have more variability in move selection.
Therefore a 45% match-up Top 1 Match to a 500 rated chess engine would be indicative of engine use but 60% match-up Top 1 Match to a much stronger engine may not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt of engine u ...[text shortened]... , the ceiling will always reach a limit but it can be higher than 60% Top 1 Match in some cases.
Originally posted by YugaAnand, Fischer, et. al. don't play at RHP. Therefore, someone reaching their match up levels at RHP is cheating. Period.
If an entity would play at RHP consistently at an OTB 2700+ standard, and I think that two do [both in the top 30], a 60% Top 1 Match would not be sufficient to ban that entity beyond reasonable doubt against a sufficiently strong engine based on the match-up of Anand, Fischer, Aronian, Svidler, and Rittner against the test engine in Gatecrasher’s analysis if match-up rates were considered alone.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by no1marauderHiya No1.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Making the same assertion over and over and over again is not providing evidence to support that assertion.
The evidence was earlier:
{ Fischer R (Games: 21) } [scoring 18.5/21 in 1971 Candidates matches]
{ Top 1 Match: 378/602 ( 62.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 495/602 ( 82.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 534/602 ( 88.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 553/602 ( 91.9% )
{ All Engines excluding Mobile Chess} [16th WCCC 2008]
{ Top 1 Match: 2450/3892 ( 62.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 3138/3892 ( 80.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 3395/3892 ( 87.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 3548/3892 ( 91.2% )
Conclusion 1: A very good player has a higher match up than a number of engines. (Also true for Top 1, as Rybka had 64.7%, so there were engines below Bobby too. )
Conclusion 2: High match up, as defined above, alone cannot distinguish a very good player from an engine.
And don't say Bobby does not play here - a good player, taking his time over a small number of games should be just as good.
1 edit
Originally posted by gezzaBS. Somebody showing up on an internet site is not going to duplicate Fischer at the very height of his playing form. Fischer in 1971 was not "a very good player" he was the best of all time.
Hiya No1.
The evidence was earlier:
{ Fischer R (Games: 21) } [scoring 18.5/21 in 1971 Candidates matches]
{ Top 1 Match: 378/602 ( 62.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 495/602 ( 82.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 534/602 ( 88.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 553/602 ( 91.9% )
{ All Engines excluding Mobile Chess} [16th WCCC 2008]
{ Top 1 Match: 2450/3892 ( 62.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 3138/38 play here - a good player, taking his time over a small number of games should be just as good.
People like you can keep insisting that it is perfectly common for "good" internet players to duplicate such results. But you're kidding yourselves.