Originally posted by no1marauderEngine's top three choices? Again, you say this with no mention of evaluations. You continually focus on move rankings alone.
The idea that MORE PROOF is needed than a consistent 90% or more match up to an engine's top three choices is just absurd. It is simply another excuse for inaction.
Originally posted by eldragonflyTotally relevant cause all you do is to deny what someone else is saying and say nothing (except of course some examples of logical fallacies) to show why the others are wrong.
again totally irrelevant. ad hominem=logical fallacy. And on the puzzles forum it was a gee whiz cut and paste problem most likely from wikipedia... Thread 90807 the fact is i was right, they were wrong.
On that problem you were wrong. You didn't understood what was asked and maybe even you don't understand some basic notion on probabilities. Either that or you do understand and just like to piss people off over the internet.
Last time I've indulged you. Have fun around here.
Originally posted by adam warlockad hominem=logical fallacy. On that problem i was right, it was the others that couldn't understand my straightforward and direct analyses. They, like yourself were acting like indignant, self-absorbed and supremely ignorant nincompoops, who couldn't sort out the simplest of ideas.
Totally relevant cause all you do is to deny what someone else is saying and say nothing (except of course some examples of logical fallacies) to show why the others are wrong.
On that problem you were wrong. You didn't understood what was asked and maybe even you don't understand some basic notion on probabilities. Either that or you do understand and just like to piss people off over the internet.
Originally posted by VarenkaJesus H Christ. I've said nothing inconsistent; you're just too lazy to read what I write. I'll talk slow since this seems sooooooooooo hard to understand:
[b]What part of "that's what the Game Mods told me to do" are you missing?
I guess the bit where you clearly and consistently explain your analysis approach. At one point it was backwards with blunder check.... then it was forwards.... then it was move ranking alone.... and then with evaluation thresholds... sometimes it's the top 3.... other times ...[text shortened]... d earlier show where I got the Rittner PGNs from. Go there and pick some games yourself.[/b]
1) When I am checking my own games, I'm not checking for engine cheating (since I know I'm not doing it) but largely for missed tactical opportunities. Thus, my approach in that type of analysis is a blunder check which is more than adequate for the purpose desired;
2) When checking for engine cheats, I asked the Game Mods what format they desired including the settings. They told me they needed output showing the first three engine recommendations. That's time consuming (you have to let the engine run for the designated time and then hit "Copy All to Notation"😉 but that's how they want it;
3) If a move didn't show in the top three, I'd sometimes go over that move adding two more recommendations to the output to see if the move was there and how much it varied from the 1st choice. If it did, I added that to my review of the data. You are free to make of the data what you will;
4) The output given will usually tell you if the chosen move was within .10 centipawns of Fritz's first choice. I don't need to run a separate analysis to do this (except when it's not one of Fritz's top three recommendations as described).
Is there anything else you don't understand?
How did you come to pick those particular Rittner games? Was it because someone said "look at these games; Rittner's style is nothing like an engine?". That was the method used to pick the games analyzed in the deleted thread.
Originally posted by VarenkaYou continually ignore what I have written. A player who matches up 90% to Fritz's first three move recommendations over many moves is also a player who is going to match up at about 90% to Fritz's first move or a move within .10 centipawns. I know this from experience with many analyzed games of cheats here. It's just two different ways of looking at the same data both leading to one inescapable conclusion for reasonable persons with reasonable minds.
Engine's top three choices? Again, you say this with no mention of evaluations. You continually focus on move rankings alone.
Originally posted by no1marauder
You make the same mistakes over and over again. Specifically, you seem to think that stronger players NEVER err or make non-optimum moves. But that is ridiculous as you have been already told several times.
When have I ever said strong players never err? I don't recollect ever saying that. In fact I have said in previous threads that the absense of blunders is, in my opinion, highly supicious, so please stop attributing words to me that I don't say.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Over a series of games, 90% of the moves ARE NOT obvious and/or forced. Many moves are those where reasonable players might differ.
Can you please indicate where I said otherwise?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Many moves are those where reasonable players might differ. But if the "reasonable mind" of a user name is almost invariably picking a move that a engine would, it is beyond question he's using an engine to "help" him.
Again have I said this is the case? You seem to be extending your definition of an engine move down not only to the 1st 3 choices but have added in the next 6 because they might only differ by .01. I am merely saying that in a game of 50 moves a strong player may not deviate from an engines top 10 choices in more than 5 moves. You are extending your definition of engine move down too far in my opinion.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp; a human being looking at a chess board with his own eyes doesn't realize that Move A is .50 centipawns better than Move B - a human being looking at his handy dandy engine analysis does.
He does realise the difference if move A wins a piece and move B loses one but you are also including move C and D, E and F when the difference in evaluation suits you.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I analyze how the Game Mods told me to. Personally, I prefer an analysis which declares a "match up" to be the engine's first choice or a close equivalence (say .10 centipawns). However much it may shock you or others though, in the case of blatant engine cheats the results come out about the same either way.
I can accept that we define a match up as being within .10 centipawns but I cannot accept you deciding there is a match up when move 1 is +6.00 and move 3 -3.00. I am merely saying your process is too blunt an instrument.
Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: As an example, the 50 move draw of the suspect came out this way using the Game Mods way of looking at the data:
38 non-database moves
1st choice: 25
2nd choice: 10
3rd choice: 3
Total: 38/38 or 100%
This is highly supicious and if repeated across a reasonable range of games would amount to fairly damning evidence if not conclusive proof.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Looking at the data the way I prefer, 36 of 38 moves (95😵were either Fritz's first choice or within .10 centipawns of Fritz's first choice. One second choice was .28 different; one third choice was .20 different.
I am not sure what you are saying. What matters is what was the 4th choice - if it was 1.50 centipawns worse than the 3rd choice it is hardly surprising it wasn't choosen. If it was it would constitute a blunder.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Does the difference in looking at the data really change the conclusion here?
What conclusion can possibly be reached from a single game without looking in more detail at the circumstances of each move?
Originally posted by Dragon FireYou're tiresome. You imply things then quickly deny you meant them. You constantly lie about what I have said. Here is a typical DF lie:
[/b]Originally posted by no1marauder
You make the same mistakes over and over again. Specifically, you seem to think that stronger players NEVER err or make non-optimum moves. But that is ridiculous as you have been already told several times.
[/b]When have I ever said strong players never err? I don't recollect ever saying that. In fact I have ...[text shortened]... any moves were also cited in that thread. You really are very comfortable with deceit, aren't you?
but you are also including move C and D, E and F when the difference in evaluation suits you.
No, I am not and you know it. I specifically stated what my methods were; you won't find any " what suits me" in the criteria I have mentioned. So please stop your usual falsehoods. The Mods want evaluations based on top 3 choices; I give that. The same data can be looked at using a criteria of .10 centipawns as a match up. I don't combine them as you suggest; I give the results separately. Please explain what is objectionable about presenting the data this way.
I don't much care about your opinion since it is so uninformed and seems to move around at the drop of a hat. In the end, all you seem to propose is a totally unworkable criteria (as Dave Tebb pointed out) that will make detection of engine cheats impossible. If that's your agenda, say so and stop wasting everybody's time with your "I want to get rid of engine cheats too BUT .............." when the BUT in essence means that no engine cheats will ever be removed.
EDIT: DF: I am not sure what you are saying. What matters is what was the 4th choice - if it was 1.50 centipawns worse than the 3rd choice it is hardly surprising it wasn't choosen. If it was it would constitute a blunder.
Of course, humans can't blunder!🙄
EDIT2: What conclusion can possibly be reached from a single game without looking in more detail at the circumstances of each move?
Another deliberate half-truth. You are perfectly aware that other games with many moves were also analyzed in that thread. In fact, I've personally analyzed well over a dozen of this suspect's games. The results are all consistent.
Originally posted by VarenkaHere's a 50 move draw of Rittner's: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264126
[b]What part of "that's what the Game Mods told me to do" are you missing?
I guess the bit where you clearly and consistently explain your analysis approach. At one point it was backwards with blunder check.... then it was forwards.... then it was move ranking alone.... and then with evaluation thresholds... sometimes it's the top 3.... other times d earlier show where I got the Rittner PGNs from. Go there and pick some games yourself.[/b]
Let's see how it matches up with the 50 move draw of the suspect. You can start at White's move 14 where Rittner varies from a Polugaevsky game.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow true, his witless and incoherent rebuttals are indeed an eyesore. i myself was wondering where DF and others of his ilk were going with these rather hopeless, timid and specious conclusions, errant falsehoods, and incompetent commentary.
I don't much care about your opinion since it is so uninformed and seems to move around at the drop of a hat. In the end, all you seem to propose is a totally unworkable criteria (as Dave Tebb pointed out) that will make detection of engine cheats impossible.
Rittner - Kaurenen
Fritz 10 at 30 seconds at 512MB
37 non-database moves
1st: 18
2nd: 6
3rd: 2
Total: 26/37 or 70%
11 non-matches of which 9 didn't match any of Fritz's first five recommendations.
OR
based on Fritz's 1st or within .10 centipawns:
22/37 or 59% (2 were close at .11 and .12); throw them in too if you desire.
That's a 50 move draw of Rittner's; here's the 50 move draw of suspect:
1st: 25
2nd: 10
3rd: 3
Total: 38/38 or 100%
OR
Fritz's 1st + .10 equivalents
36/38 or 95%
Quite a difference.