Originally posted by ZygalskiThat pleases me, because of all the games I've seen of the front page crowd, I enjoy his style of play the most 🙂
PAWN RIOT had refreshingly low match rates when I analysed him 18 months ago, in fact several % points lower for top1/2/3/4 than his 20 2000+ rated opponents!
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only time numbers like you and Zyger posted EVER got players banned was when they either had an unfathemable ratings increase or misrepresented their chess credentials in the forums.
I know that is not the case.
These numbers would have several CC players from the 70's banned, and chess has improved since then. The numbers are fishy at best.
Originally posted by PhlabibitAre you retarded or just plain ignorant?
The only time numbers like you and Zyger posted EVER got players banned was when they either had an unfathemable ratings increase or misrepresented their chess credentials in the forums.
These numbers would have several CC players from the 70's banned, and chess has improved since then. The numbers are fishy at best.
This has been done to death.
Pre-computer era CC World Championship finalists and modern OTB Super GM's like Carlsen, Anand & Kramnik all play engine-like chess to only a certain degree when you look at samples of 600+ non-database moves from their games.
It matters not one iota about modern engine prep.
Let me quote from a player who was a games mod here, one who I know you trust & respect more than virtually anyone else:
21st October 2010
Thread 135047
"Strong humans and computers play differently. Strong humans generally play to specific strategies, to a specific plan, whereas engines will quite happily go off on tangents for a 0.01 pawn advantage, after evaluating millions of positions in a matter of seconds. These are moves and evaluations that strong human beings wouldn't even begin to consider, even if they were capable.
Simplistically, if you compare verifiably strong human match-up rates to engines over many games, the level of agreement with engines is far lower than many "top players" on RHP manage to consistently achieve.
While it is true that super-GMs get higher match-ups than regular GMs, who in turn get higher match-ups than IMs, who in turn get higher match-ups than FM's, etc, many players here and on other internet chess sites are capable of extraordinary match-ups; far, far, far in excess of the super-GM range. Even the top echelons of correspondence chess in the pre-computer era had similar match-up rates as today's regular GMs (and less than current super GMs)
There are some really good players at RHP whose match-up stats fall below GM/IM levels. These are the strong human players, who play excellent chess without the need to mimic Rybka or Fritz. And then there are those who, for want of a better word, are cheats."
It's interesting that Skeeter seems to have had whole games, or at least fairly long serious of moves, where it is clear that the moves weren't those of Fritz / Rybka. I'm guessing that she is a fairly weak club player (perhaps 1500 FIDE) who occasionally tried to play games by herself and then plugged the position into an engine when she didn't know what to do or needed rescuing. Against strong opposition she probably used the engine from move 1.
Originally posted by Zygalski"Retarded?" No name calling needed here. Yeah, that's the guy who sent me your original analysis to pass on to Russ as was procedure that you sent in November 2010. He said of it "nothing alarming but higher than previous batches. I still have access to all the games him, me, and other mods ran as our guide lines.
Are you retarded or just plain ignorant?
This has been done to death.
Pre-computer era CC World Championship finalists and modern OTB Super GM's like Carlsen, Anand & Kramnik all play engine-like chess to only a certain degree when you look at samples of 600+ non-database moves from their games.
It matters not one iota about modern engine prep.
Let ybka or Fritz. And then there are those who, for want of a better word, are cheats."[/i]
You keep trying to attack my credibility when it is you who has none. There's probably a good reason you were never involved in the process.
If game mods later speculated skeeter, it wasn't your numbers that sparked it.
Have a good one!
The PAWN RIOT games I analysed were all versus 2000+ RHP players.
Eesh - you can't get anything right, can you?
As for the Mods, well they thought skeeter should have been banned years ago, but being central to the process, you already knew that, right?
Also, please furnish me with a pre-computer era CC player whose match rate exceeds skeeter for a batch of 600+ non-theory moves.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
I'd let it go Phlabbs.
She was banned for abuse and hounding not for cheating.
Before her niece's account was closed she PM'd me the banning note from Russ.
Russ and I were talking about a different matter, Skeeter was mentioned.
He confirmed it. He had given her enough warnings. She failed to stop.
She was banned.
I'd like to see the game that gave her the most damning score.
If No1 could post that I'd like to see it.
Accepting that Skeets numbers were in the dodgy category we have to ask
when did she start? She was top player a few times on here and there is
the small matter of her 200+ losses to consider.
(she has offcially 277 but remove her time outs (25) and resignations when she threw a fit
then you are left with about 200 games a 'proven' cheat has lost.
How did that happen? (Big Ron who also took a while to ban had only one loss.)
Switching off the box when she played the likes of David Tebb as beating him
would have raised the eybrows.
Avoiding attracting attention to themselves must be one of the cheats golden rules.
So no profile and no posts. (Skeeter apparently forgot this bit.) 😉
Throwing the odd game is another known method adopted by cheats.
Even if we say Skeets switched off the box for 50% of those losses that still
leaves a whole chunk of games lost (and 57 draws) by someone we are now
accepting as an engine user.
So how did that happen?
Hands up all those who have beaten Skeeter.
And hands up all those who have beaten a Skeeter beater.
And hands up all those who have beaten those that have beat the Skeeter beaters.
And hands up all those who have beat someone who has beat a beaten Skeeter beater.
And hands up......
......last to leave please switch off the lights.
🙂
Originally posted by Phlabibit88.8% of 1/2/3 isn't sufficient? No wonder why the Site has always been overrun with cheats.
The only time numbers like you and Zyger posted EVER got players banned was when they either had an unfathemable ratings increase or misrepresented their chess credentials in the forums.
These numbers would have several CC players from the 70's banned, and chess has improved since then. The numbers are fishy at best.
I doubt Exy reached or exceeded those numbers.
Engines don't play chess; they solve a chess position. Every move. They can't think strategically beyond their calculating horizons. Humans don't play like them and that difference shows over a sufficient sample.
Originally posted by ZygalskiThey were ran in batches of 300-400 moves per player.... no book moves. When all players combines average out to:
The PAWN RIOT games I analysed were all versus 2000+ RHP players.
Eesh - you can't get anything right, can you?
As for the Mods, well they thought skeeter should have been banned years ago, but being central to the process, you already knew that, right?
Also, please furnish me with a pre-computer era CC player whose match rate exceeds skeeter for a batch of 600+ non-theory moves.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
56%
74%
82%
87%
AVERAGE!
for nearly 3000 moves some of them had numbers that would have you crying cheat based on your theory of 60 first 85 third. I don't see how having 200 or 300 less than your 600 makes a difference here.
Skeeter is gone, you're 100 percent sure... congratulations. Now keep running batches and sending them in as fair play tickets and pat yourself on the back as the cheats fall.
The average in many games over time is the key, Phlabs, and that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp.
What you posted just confirmed what I said before - that the extreme upper end thresholds are 60/75/85% for top 1/2//3 matches for non-theory move batches in many games over time.
At last we agree! 😀
Originally posted by ZygalskiSo anyone over your 60 85 rule was a time traveler with a chess engine. THAT'S SO COOL!~
The average in many games over time is the key, Phlabs, and that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp.
What you posted just confirmed what I said before - that the extreme upper end thresholds are 60/75/85% for top 1/2//3 matches for non-theory move batches in many games over time.
At last we agree! 😀
Point is, the modern Super GM's also only play engine-like chess to a certain degree.
It does stand to reason that the thresholds would be higher if a player breached the existing ones, eh?
You need the large batches simply because even lower rated players playing OTB can have a few very high match rate games. Thing is, humans can't sustain the engine-like play over long periods of time in many games.
Do you think Russ' current approach with regards to engine use on this site is right or wrong?
I wonder if you can give a straight answer...
Originally posted by ZygalskiDo you like riding bikes? I sure do.
Point is, the modern Super GM's also only play engine-like chess to a certain degree.
It does stand to reason that the thresholds would be higher if a player breached the existing ones, eh?
You need the large batches simply because even lower rated players playing OTB can have a few very high match rate games. Thing is, humans can't sustain the engine- ...[text shortened]... to engine use on this site is right or wrong?
I wonder if you can give a straight answer...
Originally posted by PhlabibitSo the best CC GMs in the world were able to achieve matchup rates of 56% 1st; 74% 1st/2nd and 82% 1st/2nd/3rd? But some schmuck turning on her computer can reach 63.3%/82.0%/88.8% and you don't consider that "overwhelming" evidence of engine use?
They were ran in batches of 300-400 moves per player.... no book moves. When all players combines average out to:
56%
74%
82%
87%
AVERAGE!
for nearly 3000 moves some of them had numbers that would have you crying cheat based on your theory of 60 first 85 third. I don't see how having 200 or 300 less than your 600 makes a difference here.
...[text shortened]... ches and sending them in as fair play tickets and pat yourself on the back as the cheats fall.