Where did it go to.....?

Originally posted by IndianaSwift
So does anyone still deny that "He who cannot be named" has been using an engine? With 97% to 100% matching moves with Fritz! I just dont think its possible without actually using Fritz, Im curious to how you guys explain this if you still think the man is innocent.

Like most others here, I hate cheats and want them banned. But here’s some thoughts on the latest discussions…

Human Potential

In order to see what is humanly possible at correspondence chess, I’ve been analysing the games of Rittner who was CC World Champion 1968-1971. Rittner wasn’t an OTB GM. Using Rybka 2.3.2, I’m seeing matchups of 92% and 89% so far. For the 89%, three of the moves were out by only 0.05; if these were treated as matchups, the value becomes 96%. I’ve only seen one significant deviation from the engine (0.45). And we know that Rittner wasn’t using an engine (games date before 1970). Full details can be posted. This sample is statistically too small to be conclusive, but it’s still interesting.

I accept that few humans can play correspondence to Rittner’s level. I’m only investigating the potential.

Top CC play is more engine-like than top OTB

Another consideration is the difference between top OTB GMs and top CC players. Kasparov has great intuition, judgement and understanding. But in OTB, he still only has an average of 3 mins or so to calculate, etc. If he feels tired or lacking concentration he has no option but to continue the game.

A top CC player lacks the same intuition, etc. but has the luxury of being able to spend days on a single move. They can move the pieces and write extensive notes. They will typically look at many, many more positions that Kasparov would, and with a clearer image of them (i.e. physically in front of them). If they feel tired, they can postpone making a move.

Now, which one of these playing approaches do you think is most similar to the way an engine plays? Of course, it is more like the CC player – analysing many, many variations in order to try to figure out what’s going on, rather than using mainly intuition. So is it fair to use top OTB players as a benchmark for what the top CC players can feasibly play like? I don’t think so.

Blunder checking

Fritz’s blunder check analyses the game backwards. I believe some people are using this to get matchup figures. But there is an issue.

Supposing I were to analyse a game backwards with a human. We step from position B back to the previous position A, and I ask you to pick a move. But you remember that position B was a win, and hence this affects your choice of move at position A. The move leading to position B starts more favourably than it would if we were analysing the game forwards, and hence has an increased matchup probability. This effect happens with engines too due to their hashtable containing positions from later in the game. That’s why blunder check goes backwards and not forwards.

To get matchup values, we should analyse the game forwards since this is what a potential cheater would have to do.

Nice post the previous one.

I suspected the engines were being switched on when the weaker
player was in trouble and NOT for the whole game.

As expected PM has loads of names & games.

All I need now to find out how many actual games are being
played at this moment in time (60,000?) and we shall see
the percentage of cheats is actually very low.

So we can stop worrying about it and all be friends again.

Originally posted by Varenka
Like most others here, I hate cheats and want them banned. But here’s some thoughts on the latest discussions…

[b]Human Potential

In order to see what is humanly possible at correspondence chess, I’ve been analysing the games of Rittner who was CC World Champion 1968-1971. Rittner wasn’t an OTB GM. Using Rybka 2.3.2, I’m seeing matchups of 92% a ...[text shortened]... es, we should analyse the game forwards since this is what a potential cheater would have to do.[/b]

Me too - it is a good bit of insight.

Originally posted by Varenka
To get matchup values, we should analyse the game forwards since this is what a potential cheater would have to do.

Originally posted by Kepler
One game is meaningless. There were other games in that thread with lower match ups. Indeed, Paul Morphy scored higher in this thread than a game from the nameless one in t'other thread. Statisticians need a lot of data and so far there isn't much so I will offer no opinion on the nameless one. I could do the analysis myself but it is a time consuming task without automation.

And here is the game and CM8k annotations

Game 4415655

[Event "Christmas 2007 Banded Duel 1400-1500"]
[Site "http://www.chessatwork.com"]
[Date "2007.12.24"]
[Round "1"]
[White "cardiffwizard"]
[Black "adam warlock"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 {Book.} 1... c5 {Book.} 2. c4 {Score: 0.04 2... Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Nc3 e5 5. Be2 Bd6 6. O-O O-O 7. d3} 2... Nc6 {Score: 0.09 3. Nf3
Nf6 4. Nc3 e5 5. d3 Bd6 6. Nb5 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O} 3. a3 {Score:
0.14 3... Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Nf3 d5 6. e5 Nd7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. d4 cxd4 9.
Bg5} 3... d6 {Score: 0.04 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 g6 6. Nf3 Bg7 7. Be2 O-O
8. O-O Bg4 9. Be3} 4. h3 {Score: 0.29 4... g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Nc3 Nf6
7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O Bd7 9. d3} 4... g6 {Score: 0.29 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Nc3
Nf6 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O Bd7 9. d3 Qb6} 5. d3 {Score: 0.39 5... Bg7 6.
Nf3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Be3 Qb6 9. Na4 Qc7 10. b4} 5... Bg7 {Score: 0.39
6. Nf3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Be3 Qb6 9. Na4 Qc7 10. b4} 6. Ne2 {Score:
0.49 6... Nf6 7. Nbc3 O-O 8. Be3 Be6 9. b4 Nd7 10. b5 Qa5 11. bxc6
Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3 Qxc3+ 13. Bd2} 6... Nf6 {Score: 0.49 7. Nbc3 O-O 8.
Be3 Be6 9. b4 Nd7 10. b5 Qa5 11. bxc6 Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3 Qxc3+ 13. Bd2} 7.
f3 {Score: 0.71 7... O-O 8. Nbc3 Qb6 9. Na4 Qc7 10. Nac3 Be6 11. Be3
Rad8} 7... Qc7 {Score: 0.45 8. Nbc3 Qb6 9. g4 O-O 10. g5 Nd7 11. Bg2
e6 12. f4 Nd4 13. Nxd4 Bxd4} 8. g4 {Score: 0.47 8... O-O 9. Nbc3 Qb6
10. g5 Nd7 11. Nd5 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qd8 13. Bc3} 8... Nd7 {Score: 0.37 9.
Nbc3 O-O 10. Be3 e6 11. Bg2 Qb6 12. b4 a5 13. bxc5 dxc5} 9. Bd2 {Score:
0.95 9... Nde5 10. Nec3 Nd4 11. Be2 Nec6 12. Be3 O-O 13. Nd5 Qd8 14.
Nbc3 Be6} 9... Nde5 {Score: 0.98 10. Ng1 Nd4 11. Nc3 O-O 12. Nb5 Nxb5
13. cxb5 Be6 14. f4 Nd7 15. f5} 10. Nc1 {Score: -1.25 10... Nd4 11.
Bg2 Qb6 12. Bc3 Nec6 13. Ne2 O-O 14. Nd2 Bd7} 10... Nd4 {Score: -1.13
11. Bg2 Qb6 12. Nc3 O-O 13. b4 e6 14. f4 Nec6 15. N1e2 Bd7} 11. Bg2 {
Score: 0.91 11... O-O 12. Nc3 e6 13. Nb5 Nxb5 14. cxb5 a6 15. f4 Nd7
16. Ne2 axb5} 11... Bd7 {Score: 0.99 12. Be3 Nec6 13. Nc3 e6 14. N1e2
O-O 15. Nxd4 Nxd4 16. Ne2} 12. Bc3 {Score: -1.15 12... Nec6 13. b4 O-O
14. b5 Nd8 15. Ne2 N8e6 16. Nd2 Qb6 17. h4} 12... Ne6 {Score: 0.72
13. Ne2 Bh6 14. Qc2 O-O 15. Bd2 Bxd2+ 16. Nxd2 Nc6 17. Nb3 Qb6 18. f4}
13. O-O {Score: 0.77 13... g5 14. Ne2 b5 15. Qc2 Qb6 16. f4 gxf4 17.
Nd2 b4} 13... h5 {Score: 0.29 14. f4 Nc6 15. Bxg7 Nxg7 16. Nc3 hxg4
17. hxg4 Nd4 18. Nd5 Qd8 19. f5} 14. f4 {Score: 0.39 14... Nc6 15.
Bxg7 Nxg7 16. Nc3 hxg4 17. hxg4 Nd4 18. Nd5 Qd8 19. Nb3 Nge6} 14... hxg4
{Score: 0.29 15. fxe5 gxh3 16. exd6 Qxd6 17. Bxg7 Nxg7 18. Bf3 Qd4+
19. Kh1 Qxb2 20. Nb3 Ne6 21. Be2} 15. fxe5 {Score: 0.40 15... gxh3
16. Bf3 Bxe5 17. Bg4 Bd4+ 18. Kh1 f5 19. Bxd4 Nxd4 20. exf5 gxf5} 15...
gxh3 {Score: 0.34 16. Bf3 Bxe5 17. Bxe5 dxe5 18. Ne2 Rc8 19. Bg4 h2+
20. Kh1 f5 21. exf5 Bc6+ 22. Bf3 gxf5} 16. Bh1 {Score: 0.76 16... h2+
17. Kf2 dxe5 18. Ne2 Nd4 19. Nxd4 exd4 20. Bd2 Rh3 21. Ke2} 16... h2+ {
Score: 0.90 17. Kf2 dxe5 18. b4 Rd8 19. Ne2 Qd6 20. Ke1 Rh3 21. Rf3
Rxf3 22. Bxf3} 17. Kf2 {Score: 0.72 17... dxe5 18. Nd2 Nd4 19. Nf3
Rd8 20. Ne2 Bh3 21. Re1 O-O 22. Nxh2} 17... dxe5 {Score: 0.84 18. Nd2
O-O-O 19. Ne2 Kb8 20. Ke1 Be8 21. Nf3 Rh3 22. b4} 18. Nd2 {Score: 0.90
18... O-O-O 19. Ke1 Ng5 20. Rf2 Rh4 21. Nf3 Nxf3+ 22. Rxf3 Bg4} 18...
Nf4 {Score: 0.60 19. Ke1 Kf8 20. Rf2 Rd8 21. Nf1 Be6 22. Rd2 Rh3 23.
Nxh2} 19. Nf3 {Score: 0.73 19... O-O-O 20. Ne2 f6 21. Nxf4 exf4 22.
b4 Bh3 23. Re1 Be6} 19... O-O-O {Score: 0.51 20. Ke1 Rh3 21. Qc2 Kb8
22. Nxh2 Rdh8 23. Rf2 f5 24. b4} 20. Ke3 {Score: -1.88 20... Bh3 21.
Re1 Ng2+ 22. Ke2 Nxe1 23. Qxe1 Bg4 24. Qg3 f5 25. Nb3} 20... Bh3 {Score:
-2.10 21. Kd2 Bxf1 22. Qxf1 Kb8 23. Qf2 Qd6 24. Kc2 Nxd3 25. Nxd3
Qxd3+ 26. Kb3 Qxe4 27. Qxc5} 21. Rf2 {Score: -2.44 21... Bh6 22. Qc2
Nxd3+ 23. Ke2 Nxf2 24. Kxf2 f6 25. Nd3 Be6 26. b3 Bf4 27. Nxf4 exf4}
21... Bh6 {Score: -2.44 22. Qc2 Nxd3+ 23. Ke2 Nxf2 24. Kxf2 f6 25. Nd3
Be6 26. b3 Bf4 27. Nxf4 exf4} 22. Bxe5 {Score: -6.18 22... Nxd3+ 23.
Ke2 Nxe5 24. Qb3 Ng4 25. e5 Nxf2 26. Kxf2 Bf5 27. Ne2} 22... Nxd3+ {
Score: -6.07 23. Ke2 Nxe5 24. Qc2 Ng4 25. Nd3 Nxf2 26. Kxf2 Kb8 27. e5
} 23. Ke2 {Score: -6.52 23... Nxe5 24. Qc2 Bg4 25. Nb3 Nxf3 26. Rxf3
Bxf3+ 27. Bxf3 Bf4 28. Rd1 Kb8} 23... Nxe5 {Score: -6.81 24. Qc2 Bg4
25. Nb3 Rd3 26. Qxd3 Nxd3 27. Kxd3 Qd6+ 28. Kc2 Be3 29. Re2} 24. Qa4 {
Score: -13.99 24... Nxf3 25. Rxf3 Rd2+ 26. Ke1 Qe5 27. Qb3 Qxe4+ 28.
Re3 Qxh1+ 29. Kxd2 Qg2+ 30. Ne2 Rd8+ 31. Kc3 Bg7+ 32. Re5 Bxe5+ 33. Kc2
h1=Q 34. Rxh1 Qxh1} 24... Nxf3 {Score: -13.99 25. Rxf3 Rd2+ 26. Ke1 Qe5
27. Qb3 Qxe4+ 28. Re3 Qxh1+ 29. Kxd2 Qg2+ 30. Ne2 Rd8+ 31. Kc3 Bg7+ 32.
Re5 Bxe5+ 33. Kc2 h1=Q 34. Rxh1 Qxh1} 25. Nd3 {Score: -99.81 25... Nd4+
26. Kd1 Bg4+ 27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3 Qg3 29. Qc6+ bxc6 30. Ne1 Qxf3+ 31.
Nxf3 h1=Q+ 32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3 Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2#} 25... Nd4+ {Score:
-18.53 26. Kd1 Qg3 27. Ne1 Bg4+ 28. Rf3 Nxf3+ 29. Kc2 Nd4+ 30. Kb1
Qxe1+ 31. Ka2} 26. Kd1 {Score: -99.83 26... Bg4+ 27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3
Qg3 29. Qd7+ Rxd7 30. Ne1 Qxf3+ 31. Nxf3 h1=Q+ 32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3
Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2#} 26... Bg4+ {Score: -99.84 27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3
Qg3 29. Qc6+ bxc6 30. Ne1 Qxf3+ 31. Nxf3 h1=Q+ 32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3
Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2#} 27. Ke1 {Score: -99.91 27... Qg3 28. Qc6+ Nxc6 29.
Bf3 h1=Q+ 30. Bxh1 Qg1+ 31. Rf1 Qe3#} 27... Qg3 {Score: -99.92 28. Nf4
Qg1+ 29. Kd2 Qxf2+ 30. Kc1 Qe1+ 31. Qd1 Qxd1#} 28. Bg2 {Score: -99.95
28... h1=Q+ 29. Bxh1 Qg1+ 30. Rf1 Qe3#} 28... h1=R+ {Score: -99.96 29.
Bxh1 Qg1+ 30. Rf1 Qe3#} 29. Bxh1 {Score: -99.97 29... Qg1+ 30. Rf1 Qe3#
} 29... Qg1+ {Score: -99.98 30. Rf1 Qe3#} 30. Rf1 {Score: -99.99 30...

And this is the natural language evaluation. Even though he sugests different moves on the numerical evaluation he gives me 100%. I think this has something to do with the fact that the engine does the evaluation from the end to the start... Anyone with more engine knowledge could give me a clue.


[Event "Christmas 2007 Banded Duel 1400-1500"]
[Site "http://www.chessatwork.com"]
[Date "2007.12.24"]
[Round "1"]
[White "cardiffwizard"]
[Black "adam warlock"]
[Result "0-1"]

{
Annotations by Chessmaster 8000 Auto-Annotator. 10 seconds per
move.

White Black
Book Move 2 1
Leave Book 0 1
CM8000
Agrees 24 29
CM8000 Disagrees 4 0
Agreement Pct. 86% 100%
Total
Error 12.29 0.00
Relevant Error 5.11 0.00
Missed Mate 0 0
Moved Into
Mate 1 0
}
1. e4
{
B00 King's Pawn Opening. The King's Pawn opening
move is both popular and logical. It controls the center, opens lines
for both the Queen and the Bishop, and usually leads to an open game in
which tactics, rather than slow maneuvering, predominates.
}
1... c5
{
B20
Sicilian Defense. The Sicilian Defense has an ancient lineage. It
creates an unbalanced position in which both sides have full rein for
play, and allows Black to call the shots at least to some extent.
}
2. c4
{
B20 Sicilian Defense. The move 2.c4 is a transpositional device to the
Botvinnik English or Maroczy Bind Sicilian - if you know what you're
doing. If you don't know the Maroczy Bind from a five iron, perhaps it
would be better for you not to try 2.c4 because it makes for some
positional problems for the f1-Bishop.
}
2... Nc6
{
Out of Opening Book.
d6 would have been in the Sicilian Defense opening line.

§?ž¯³¹—¨
ƒŸ?ŸƒŸƒŸ
??—?????
??ƒ?????
??ý?ý???
????????
ýÿ?ÿ?ÿýÿ
¦•?ª²›–¤
}
3. a3 d6 4. h3 g6 5. d3 Bg7
{
Pins White's pawn at b2.
}
6. Ne2 Nf6
{
Clears the way for a kingside castle.
}
7. f3 Qc7 8. g4 Nd7
{
Pins White's
pawn at b2.
}
9. Bd2 Nde5
{
Threatens checkmate (knight takes pawn at d3),
forks White's pawn at d3 and White's pawn at f3, and blocks White's pawn
at e4.
}
10. Nc1
{
Removes the threat on White's pawn at d3 and White's
pawn at f3.
}
10... Nd4
{
Blocks White's pawn at d3.
}
11. Bg2
{
Makes way
for a castle to the kingside.
}
11... Bd7
{
Enables the long castle.
}
12. Bc3 Ne6 13. O-O h5 14. f4
{
Attacks Black's knight at e5.
}
14... hxg4
{
Isolates White's pawn at h3.
}
15. fxe5
{
Attacks Black's pawn at g4 with
two pieces.
}
15... gxh3
{
Attacks White's bishop at g2 and creates passed
pawns on g6 and h3. White wins a knight for two pawns.
}
16. Bh1
{
Moves
it to safety.
}
16... h2+
{
Checks White's king and adds a promote threat
at h2.
}
17. Kf2
{
Moves it out of check and removes the promote threat at
h2.
}
17... dxe5
{
Black wins a pawn. Material is even.
}
18. Nd2 Nf4 19. Nf3 O-O-O 20. Ke3
{
Leads to 20... Bh3 21. Re1 Ng2+ 22. Ke2 Nxe1 23. Qxe1
Bg4 24. Qg3 f5 25. Nb3, which wins a knight for a rook. Better is Ke1,
leading to 20... Rh3 21. Qc2 Kb8 22. Nxh2 Rdh8 23. Rf2 f5 24. b4, which
wins a pawn.
}
20... Bh3
{
Threatens White's rook at f1.
}
21. Rf2
{
Moves
it to safety.
}
21... Bh6 22. Bxe5
{
Leads to 22... Nxd3+ 23. Ke2 Nxe5 24.
Qb3 Ng4 25. e5 Nxf2 26. Kxf2 Bf5 27. Ne2, which wins a knight and a pawn
for a rook, a bishop, and a pawn. Better is Qc2, leading to 22... Nxd3+
23. Ke2 Nxf2 24. Kxf2 f6 25. Nd3 Be6 26. b3 Bf4 27. Nxf4 exf4, which
wins a bishop and a knight for a rook, a knight, and a pawn. This was
white's key error. White was not able to regain the lost ground and was
eventually mated.

??³¨???¨
ƒŸ¯?ƒŸ??
??????Ÿ¹
??ƒ?????
??ý?ý˜??
ÿ??ý²•?ž
?ÿ???¦?ƒ
¦?–ª???›
}
22... Nxd3+
{
Forks White's king and White's rook at f2 and isolates
White's pawn at e4.
}
23. Ke2
{
Moves it out of check.
}
23... Nxe5
{
Protects Black's rook at h8 and Black's queen, forks White's queen and
White's pawn at c4, and blocks White's pawn at e4.
}
24. Qa4
{
Danger!
Leads to 24... Nxf3 25. Rxf3 Rd2+ 26. Ke1 Qe5 27. Qb3 Qxe4+ 28. Re3
Qxh1+ 29. Kxd2 Qg2+ 30. Ne2 Rd8+ 31. Kc3 Bg7+ 32. Re5 Bxe5+ 33. Kc2 h1=Q
34. Rxh1 Qxh1. Much better is Qc2, leading to 24... Bg4 25. Nb3 Rd3 26.
Qxd3 Nxd3 27. Kxd3 Qd6+ 28. Kc2 Be3 29. Re2, which gains two rooks, a
bishop, a knight, and a pawn and loses a queen and a pawn in comparison.
}
24... Nxf3
{
Protects Black's pawn at h2. Black wins a bishop, a
knight, and a pawn for a pawn. Black is ahead by a bishop and three
pawns in material.
}
25. Nd3
{
White gives Black a forced mate
opportunity. Much better is Rxf3. Nd3 leads to 25... Nd4+ 26. Kd1 Bg4+
27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3 Qg3 29. Qc6+ bxc6 30. Ne1 Qxf3+ 31. Nxf3 h1=Q+
32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3 Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2# and checkmate.
}
25... Nd4+
{
Black has a mate in 9. Moves it to safety and checks White's king. Leads
to 26. Kd1 Bg4+ 27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3 Qg3 29. Qc6+ bxc6 30. Ne1 Qxf3+
31. Nxf3 h1=Q+ 32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3 Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2# and checkmate.
}
26. Kd1
{
Moves it out of check.
}
26... Bg4+
{
Black has a mate in 8.
Checks White's king. Leads to 27. Rf3 Bxf3+ 28. Bxf3 Qg3 29. Qd7+ Rxd7
30. Ne1 Qxf3+ 31. Nxf3 h1=Q+ 32. Ne1 Qh5+ 33. Nf3 Qxf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe2# and
checkmate.
}
27. Ke1
{
Moves it out of check.
}
27... Qg3
{
Black has a mate
in 4. Pins White's rook at f2 and attacks White's knight. Leads to 28.
Qc6+ Nxc6 29. Bf3 h1=Q+ 30. Bxh1 Qg1+ 31. Rf1 Qe3# and mate.
}
28. Bg2 h1=R+
{
Black has a mate in 2. Skewers White's king and checks White's
king. Leads to 29. Bxh1 Qg1+ 30. Rf1 Qe3# and mate.
}
29. Bxh1
{
Removes
the threat on White's king. Black is ahead by a bishop and two pawns in
material.
}
29... Qg1+
{
Black is one move from mate. Skewers White's king
and forks White's bishop and White's king. Leads to 30. Rf1 Qe3# and
checkmate.
}
30. Rf1
{
Forced. Removes the threat on White's king and
White's bishop and threatens Black's queen.
}
30... Qe3#
{
Checkmates
White's
king.
??³¨???¨
ƒŸ??ƒŸ??
??????Ÿ¹
??ƒ?????
ª?ý˜ý?ž?
ÿ??•¯???
?ÿ??????
¦???²¤?›
}
0-1

Originally posted by no1marauder
No other game in that thread had less than a 90% match up. And those games were picked by apologists for that player as supposed examples of play that was distinctly human and not like an engine.

Originally posted by Varenka
Like most others here, I hate cheats and want them banned. But here’s some thoughts on the latest discussions…

[b]Human Potential

In order to see what is humanly possible at correspondence chess, I’ve been analysing the games of Rittner who was CC World Champion 1968-1971. Rittner wasn’t an OTB GM. Using Rybka 2.3.2, I’m seeing matchups of 92% a ...[text shortened]... es, we should analyse the game forwards since this is what a potential cheater would have to do.[/b]

Originally posted by adam warlock
But do you do forward or backwards analysis?

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Rec'd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That "red herring" is addressed in my last post. I analyze EXACTLY how I was told to by a Game Mod.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No other game in that thread had less than a 90% match up. And those games were picked by apologists for that player as supposed examples of play that was distinctly human and not like an engine.