Originally posted by ReelEmInReidIm saying there should be some way of dealing with it. A set of guide lines or something. You can prove that people are cheating, but then after they have been proven to cheat, what happens ?
Are you saying we should eject people that we suspect of using computers? I for one would like to see fewer or no computer users on this site but we I don't think we can kick people off on suspicions.
Chess federations dont let people cheat, my club has had a member banned for the whole season for helping another member. Also, not that long ago in Germany this new chess player popped up onto the scene, he was kicking butt good and proper, but every now and again he would do a stupid move, like moving his king into check and his opponet would have to tell him. Some organisers got together with another IM and asked the IM to talk to this new chess player. The IM went over to this new dazzling star and went "What do you think of the Spanish" and the star chess player went "Spanish?" Turns out he was using an ear piece and his friend was on an engine. Its harder to know who is cheating on rhp, but not hard to prove it, its just a case of what should be done after.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowThere is a set of guidelines. As far as I'm aware they're kicked off the site. It is the proving that's the difficult part.
Im saying there should be some way of dealing with it. A set of guide lines or something. You can prove that people are cheating, but then after they have been proven to cheat, what happens ?
Originally posted by TheMaster37It's easy. You simply start a polite conversation with them and then after a while you let the conversation slow to a hault until you both sit in somewhat uncomfortable silence for about... fifteen seconds. Then, very casually, you say "So... what chess program you using?" And they'll probably say "What chess program?" or try to deny it, and that's when you know they're guilty! Hope I helped.
Problem;
Some people actually do make moves like the chessprograms. Some people even shred computer programs to pieces.
How can you tell the difference between such a person and a cheater?
-Kev
Originally posted by seraphimvultureThat reminds me of "Good Morning Vietnam"
It's easy. You simply start a polite conversation with them and then after a while you let the conversation slow to a hault until you both sit in somewhat uncomfortable silence for about... fifteen seconds. Then, very casually, you say "So... what chess program you using?" And they'll probably say "What chess program?" or try to deny it, and that's when you know they're guilty! Hope I helped.
-Kev
"Again we've got our friend from military intelligence. Can you tell us what you've found out about the enemy since you've been here?"
"We found out that we can't find them. They're out there, and we're having a major difficulty in finding the enemy."
"Well, what do you use to look for them?"
"Well, we ask people, 'Are you the enemy?' And whoever says yes, we shoot them"
People dont play like computers full stop. You have to really be into your chess to spot it at higher levels but anyone can see it say when you set you engine to 1200,1300,1400 etc, it just isnt a natural game and anyone can spot this. After that its just a case of how well the person knows engine play to see if they can spot it at higher levels. You can prove they are using an engine if you have enough of their games, read my rant on the complexitys of chess. Look just ask some of the top rated players on this site if they can spot Deep fritz or Deep Junior without being told they are playing them. You can find infomation as simple as humans play nothing like computers through out the net and you can check it yourself, www.chessbase.com go to downloads, and get chessbase light, it comes with a basic copy of fritz, now get a couple of GM IM etc games and run them through fritz and see what you find. Now take a few hbk9's games and do the same thing.
Deep Blue - Kasparov (Philadelphia (1) 1996)
1.e4,c5 2.c3,d5 3.exd,Qxd5 4.d4,Nf6 5.Nf3,Bg4 6.Be2,e6 7.h3,Bh5 8.0-0,Nc6 9.Be3,cxd 10.cxd,Bb4 11.a3,Ba5 12.Nc3,Qd6 13.Nb5,Qe7 14.Ne5,Bxe2 15.Qxe2,0-0 16.Rac1,Rac8 17.Bg5,Bb6 18.Bxf6,gxf 19.Nc4,Rfd8 20.Nxb6,axb6 21.Rfd1,f5 22.Qe3,Qf6 23.d5
In an article in Time magazine entitled "The day that i sensed a new kind of intelligence", Kasparov wrote of the move 23.d5
"I got my first glimpse of artificial intelligence on Feb 10, 1996, at 4:45 pm. EST, when in the first game of my match with Deep Blue, the computer nudged a pawn forward to a square where it could easily be captured. It was a wonderful and extremely human move. If i had been playing white, i might have offered this pawn sacrifice. It fractured blacks pawn structure and opened up the board. Although there did not appear to be a forced line of play that would allow recovery of the pawn, my instincts told me that with so many loose black pawns and a somewhat exposed black king, White could probably recover the material, with a better overall position to boot. But a computer, i thought, would never make such a move. A computer cant "see" the long term consequences of structural changes in the position or understand how changes in pawn formations may be good or bad."
However, when various people tried the posistion on far more primitive computers than Deep Blue, they were more than a little surprised by the results, an old Fidelity Mach 3 found it, Genius 4 found it, Crafty found it.
My old Mephisto Berlin pro found it, inbetween its many vector errors !!
The point, work it out for yourselves.
Me personally, i dont care if your running Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chessmaster, the lot. You can have Deep Blue in the basement for all i care, for me its the thrill of the chase 🙂
forevergreen
I admit, I've had the suspicion myself a couple of times. Generally in situations where, for example, my opponent is several hundred rating points below me, yet is playing such a dangerous and tactically sharp game that, as WHITE, I immediately lose the initiative and have to play extremely precisely just to survive long enough to win the endgame. I one doesn't expect that kind of thing from someone with, say, an 1100 rating...
Originally posted by paultopiaActually, I wouldn't necessarily say that the person who is several hundred points below you and still wins use a computer.
I admit, I've had the suspicion myself a couple of times. Generally in situations where, for example, my opponent is several hundred rating points below me, yet is playing such a dangerous and tactically sharp game that, as WHITE, I imm ...[text shortened]... xpect that kind of thing from someone with, say, an 1100 rating...
I never use a computer to cheat, but most of the time I tend to blunder in the middle game. I have on a number of occasions though been extra careful and win against 1500 or 1600 players. I know that my opening and my end game is quite strong, so if I manage to get through the middle game without blundering, I stand a good chance.
I know I am getting better though as recently I have been concentrating more and not being so hasty with my moves. 🙂
Originally posted by lauseyOh, no question. But when a person several hundred points below one plays a long series of tactical threats (out of a completely non-book opening) that are barely answerable -- even spending much more time on each move than spent on games with much higher rated players -- and only by the hair of your chinney-chin-chin do you manage to forcibly simplify into an endgame? And then the endgame is totally won? That just smacks of computer: strong on tactics, weak on figuring out if their tactics are going to lead them into a horrible dead endgame. ??
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily say that the person who is several hundred points below you and still wins use a computer.
Originally posted by paultopia
Oh, no question. But when a person several hundred points below one plays a long series of tactical threats (out of a completely non-book opening) that are barely answerable -- even spending much more time on each move than spent on games with much higher rated players -- and only by the hair of your chinney-chin-chin do you manage to forcibly simplify in ...[text shortened]... weak on figuring out if their tactics are going to lead them into a horrible dead endgame. ??
Ok, based on what you said there, it does look rather dodgy. 🙂
I know a number of good openings and know a lot of theory. Just after leaving the book I make some serious blunders which is my downfall. Just means that I sometimes can beat players that are a few hundred points above me.
Based on your argument that they have no tactical play at the beginning and suddenly become very good half way through is rather suspicious though.
I don't like cheaters. Chess is like any other sport or game. In baseball, track, football they ban you. In Vegas they break your legs. In chess they say ha, ha. It strikes to the very core of the game--trust, and it shouldn't be winked at. Let them take their engines and play other engines, whatever that proves, but stop trying to pretend they can play real chess.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowYes, but your forgetting one thing, the majority of all these possible moves are utter rubbish, and would be discounted by even an average player, if you then replace the average player with a strong chess player the number of possible moves that are considered playable grows even less, if you then replace the strong player with an IM or GM, the number of moves considered (note the word considered, as opposed to possible) playable in any given posistion is reduced to 3 or 4, in posistions with forceing play even less, all the rubbish is filtered out by experience and chess knowledge.
Heres what I mean, the varitations of moves after each number
Move 1) 20 choices for white
Move 2) 20 responces for black so 20 x 20 gives a possible move variation of 400 moves after just move 2, the compexity increases amazingly as the game goes on
Move 3) 8,902
Move 4) 197,742
Move 5) 4,897,256
Move 6) 3,284,294,545
Move 7) 88,867,026,005
Chess programs do the same thing, but in a differant way, they have no experience (opening books count as experience, but there dependant on the guy who created the opening book, if he programmed in bad lines of play, the chess program would follow it, a common problem with early chess programs) or knowledge as we understand the word, so they do it by number crunching, they crunch there way through as much as they can in any given time, they prioritize "thinking" time to moves that initially appear good, and the result is the same, 3 or 4 good, playable "candidate" moves.
Yes, the number of moves that "can" be played is huge, but just because it can be played does not mean it should be considered playable.
In any given posistion there is only 3 or 4 good playable moves, in forcing variations less, maybe only 1.
Chess programs do have one weakness though, there suspect in posistional play sometimes, they go pawn grabbing (taking pawns, a top human chess player wouldnt even consider taking), show a blatant disregard for pawn structure sometimes and get obsessed with numbers. Tactically there killers, they look deep, see more than humans and do it fast.
Trouble is humans are the same, some people are tactical players and not very good at positional play, some people go pawn grabbing and some people show disregard for pawn structure.
We even get obsessed with numbers, oh how we love our ratings, lol
forevergreen