1. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    24 Jul '08 22:55
    Sometime I know before starting a game I'm playing against a computer...
    Interesting - and you don't mind?

    I believe you, but some of these things are very strong these days.
    (I'm an old hacker who can remember when these things were naff)

    What happened with rating points - did you get them back?
    (I'm sure others would like to know this as well - I'm just curious).
  2. Joined
    13 Apr '06
    Moves
    21742
    25 Jul '08 00:40
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Interesting - and you don't mind?

    I believe you, but some of these things are very strong these days.
    (I'm an old hacker who can remember when these things were naff)

    What happened with rating points - did you get them back?
    (I'm sure others would like to know this as well - I'm just curious).
    Well I don't mind as long as the rating represent the strength of the computer. I would mind if I play against a 1200 player who suddenly use Fritz or else.

    As far as I know, nobody got the rating points back when someone is banned for engine use.
  3. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    25 Jul '08 11:131 edit
    There will never be a cheat detection system with 100% accuracy. We may get close, but never 100% as such. So supposing we have to compromise, what balance would people prefer?


    A) a system that detects 99% of cheats, but 3% of the time wrongly identifies an innocent player as cheating

    B) detects 80% of cheats, and 1% of the time is wrong in the innocent case

    C) 50% of cheats, 0.5% in the innocent case


    i.e. what is your preferred balance between putting up with cheats versus risking innocent players getting banned?
  4. Stockholm
    Joined
    29 Aug '03
    Moves
    87420
    25 Jul '08 12:00
    Originally posted by Varenka
    There will never be a cheat detection system with 100% accuracy. We may get close, but never 100% as such.
    This is the real issue, isn't it? My understanding is that over a certain number of games it's impossible for any human player to matchup with a strong engine to a certain percentage level when you're out of database theory. If this is so, then it is in fact 100% accuracy.

    But how many games and what percentage level? I'm not sure there's any statistics available regarding for example human world champions or modern days GM's. I've seen some experimenting with the games of a pre-computer days CC master in another thread, but that's about it.
  5. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    25 Jul '08 13:26
    Originally posted by Zipdrive Nightmare
    This is the real issue, isn't it? My understanding is that over a certain number of games it's impossible for any human player to matchup with a strong engine to a certain percentage level when you're out of database theory. If this is so, then it is in fact 100% accuracy.

    But how many games and what percentage level? I'm not sure there's any ...[text shortened]... with the games of a pre-computer days CC master in another thread, but that's about it.
    >> If this is so, then it is in fact 100% accuracy

    I agree, but I was unclear in my initial post. When I say “cheat”, I mean all cheats, not just blatant cheats but also occassional cheats, etc. When considering the overall problem, it’s not easy to get to 100% in all cases.
  6. Joined
    21 Feb '06
    Moves
    6830
    25 Jul '08 13:55
    I posted this game a long time ago Game 3689355 and said that I was suspicious of 25. ... Bxh2 because any experienced player would recognise that the bishop is trapped after 26. g3. (Yes, I know Fischer walked into a similar trap against Spassky, but he thought he could get his bishop out!).

    At the time I thought I had worked out a way to win the bishop but I didn't need to play it as my opponent was banned. I can't find the winning line now.

  7. Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    34420
    25 Jul '08 15:032 edits
    Well I didn't see it coming... that means I'm not even an ordinary master...
    This may be a stupid question but why didn't you just take his rook in move 38? I've looked for ages and I can't see the trap. Probably why my rating is in the 1400s

    Game 2971122
  8. Joined
    21 Sep '06
    Moves
    24552
    25 Jul '08 15:59
    Originally posted by gearoidmm
    This may be a stupid question but why didn't you just take his rook in move 38? I've looked for ages and I can't see the trap. Probably why my rating is in the 1400s

    Game 2971122
    In retrospect 39.Qxc2 would have been better. But then Black plays Bxa3 and is likely winning with two bishops, safer king, and a better pawn structure. Taking on f8 first seems powerful. If the bishop is recaptured then the Rc2 drops and white is a piece up. A better try for black is retreating the R, and then white has two pieces for the rook. In both cases White is a lot better. Alas, there is a third possibility. The kind of move that a computer would not miss but most players would, perhaps even some masters.

    The point I was making is that all this needed to be seen when playing ...b6 several moves earlier. It's suggestive of computer use but by no means definitive.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree