I'd like to know why a substantial amount of evidence was allowed to be posted in the deleted thread before it went.
It was almost as if someone was saying "ok guys, make your point... a little more... a tiny bit more... ok that's plenty" and bye bye thread.
Anyone who read from page 4 onwards in the thread will know exactly what I mean.
Very odd.
Originally posted by gambit05With a danger of sinning (cheat accusation) by omission. I suspect that thread would be pulled rather rapidly also. I think we are getting away with it so far in this thread because the only people named are either long dead or at the height of their powers before engines began to be a problem.
Then the solution is to post only those with low match ups. This would give interesting gaps.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI think it was OK until someone not only mentioned a name and engine match ups but also the word "cheat" in the same post. Ironically the person named and shamed was not the person that all the fuss was about.
I'd like to know why a substantial amount of evidence was allowed to be posted in the deleted thread before it went.
It was almost as if someone was saying "ok guys, make your point... a little more... a tiny bit more... ok that's plenty" and bye bye thread.
Anyone who read from page 4 onwards in the thread will know exactly what I mean.
Very odd.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchIt was the weekend; maybe no Forum Mods were around. Perhaps no one alerted anything; I get the feeling the Mods don't cruise the Chess Forum as much as they do some others.
I'd like to know why a substantial amount of evidence was allowed to be posted in the deleted thread before it went.
It was almost as if someone was saying "ok guys, make your point... a little more... a tiny bit more... ok that's plenty" and bye bye thread.
Anyone who read from page 4 onwards in the thread will know exactly what I mean.
Very odd.
Originally posted by David TebbI don't see why an honest correspondence player who doesn't cheat should play like an engine.
This statement was made relative to OTB play. I highlighted factors that made CC more engine-like. For example, engines are not prone to tiredness, and CC players are also less prone to tiredness than OTB. There are of course other factors that differentiate engines from both CC and OTB.
"A top CC player lacks the same intuition". I disagree with this statement also.
I’m saying that intuition is relied upon much less in CC than in OTB play. For starters, how common is time trouble in CC? Also, in OTB endgames, players often can’t calculate it out due to limited time or mental ability. In CC, it’s more common to play through lots of variations to see who’s pawn queens first, etc. Extensive analysis replaces intuition in some cases. If we can check it concretely then we do.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the relevant part was on Monday. The post with the 97% analysis was on 2 pm something GMT+2.
It was the weekend; maybe no Forum Mods were around. Perhaps no one alerted anything; I get the feeling the Mods don't cruise the Chess Forum as much as they do some others.
Originally posted by adam warlock1) The CM agreement utility is a fairly weak blundercheck and gives way too many 100% readings for the stats to be meaningful or useful.
[b]CM agreement" is pretty useless, and it by no means constitutes an engine match-up. Anything below 100% means you have blundered badly. Or it could also mean that the CM engine is just too weak to appreciate a good move.
Is this true because The King is a weak engine or because it is true period? I know that for game modding issues you guys co ...[text shortened]... ish questions but some aspects of how engines do their stuff are just alien to me.[/b]
2) Yes, engines can often under-analyse (and underscore) candidate moves that were eventually played due to their respective pruning algorithm. However, if you progress backwards through the game, every played move gets the full treatment. And this is even more pronounced by the use of engine hash tables which store previously analysed positions for rapid recall.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
3 edits
Originally posted by Varenka"engines are not prone to tiredness, and CC players are also less prone to tiredness than OTB."
[b] I don't see why an honest correspondence player who doesn't cheat should play like an engine.
This statement was made relative to OTB play. I highlighted factors that made CC more engine-like. For example, engines are not prone to tiredness, and CC players are also less prone to tiredness than OTB. There are of course other factors that differe ensive analysis replaces intuition in some cases. If we can check it concretely then we do.[/b]
How many of us have made blunders or bad moves whilst playing late at night or when otherwise tired or distracted? Probably nearly everyone. Maybe there are a few players who restrain themselves and only make moves when they are completely awake and alert, but I doubt that there are many such cautious people. Also in an OTB game, you only have to play one player at a time. Most subscribers have a lot of games going at a time and are constantly switching attention from one game to another. It's very easy to mix up plans and make errors under those circumstances.
"I’m saying that intuition is relied upon much less in CC than in OTB play. For starters, how common is time trouble in CC? Also, in OTB endgames, players often can’t calculate it out due to limited time or mental ability. In CC, it’s more common to play through lots of variations to see who’s pawn queens first, etc. Extensive analysis replaces intuition in some cases. If we can check it concretely then we do"
Time trouble is extremely common on this, and probably every other "correspondence" site. A significant percentage of any player's games are won (or lost) by time-outs. Despite timebanks and a very generous vacation allowance, many players cannot manage their time effectively and regularly lose games because of it. The majority of players who do move within the time limits are still affected by time pressure. We all sometimes play a bit slowly than we intend and therefore have to rush some of our moves in order to keep to the time controls.
I agree that it's possible to do far more analysis in CC games than OTB. But most players are far too lazy (or busy with their everyday lives, their families etc.) to take advantage of the extra time available to them.
Yes, a really good, genuine CC player will spend a long time analysing and double checking all their moves. They will rely more on calculation than intuition. I think there are probably a few players like that on the site. A few players out of 20,000.
1 edit
Here’s the two Rittner games I started with:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264093
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1158516
Analysis was 3 mins per move. Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit showing top 3 moves.
Q9300 quad CPU. 1 GB Hash. WinXP 64-bit
Matchup procedure was that of the deleted thread in order to compare the 97% figure.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThat's not very fair, I still have not even read the thread.
I'd like to know why a substantial amount of evidence was allowed to be posted in the deleted thread before it went.
It was almost as if someone was saying "ok guys, make your point... a little more... a tiny bit more... ok that's plenty" and bye bye thread.
Anyone who read from page 4 onwards in the thread will know exactly what I mean.
Very odd.
Another mod messaged me, asking if it should be removed.
I said, use your judgment, I have not read it. When in doubt, take it out.
Assuming a Mod was online reading isn't very fair. That's just negative speculation on your part, no idea what it's based on.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitPhlab: When in doubt, take it out.
That's not very fair, I still have not even read the thread.
Another mod messaged me, asking if it should be removed.
I said, use your judgment, I have not read it. When in doubt, take it out.
Assuming a Mod was online reading isn't very fair. That's just negative speculation on your part, no idea what it's based on.
P-
So censorship is the preferred option here?
Originally posted by David TebbSuppose we take an arbitrary player who plays serious OTB and CC games (no engine assistance). I’m suggesting that there will typically be more of an engine matchup with the CC games compared to the OTB games. And hence, CC is more engine-like than OTB play.
In OTB play, time-trouble can mean having seconds to make a move before the flag falls. CC time-trouble is not at the level of seconds. I don’t agree that CC time trouble produces the same level of blunders as OTB time trouble.
I’ve sometimes filled pages of analysis while playing on RHP, especially during endgames. There is no way I could come close to this increased accuracy in an OTB game. And again, this extensive analysis raises my CC play closer to that of an engine.
Originally posted by PhlabibitOk fair enough.
That's not very fair, I still have not even read the thread.
Another mod messaged me, asking if it should be removed.
I said, use your judgment, I have not read it. When in doubt, take it out.
Assuming a Mod was online reading isn't very fair. That's just negative speculation on your part, no idea what it's based on.
P-
My point was that the thread managed to survive quite a long time considering what was in it.
RHP have already made their stance on the issue perfectly clear to anyone who knows anything about what goes on here & has half a brain.
I can't help thinking that all of this is just a massive waste of time anyway, as no amount of evidence in this case will make any difference IMO.
Originally posted by VarenkaI ran the first game through Fritz 10 at 30 seconds and 512 MB (the same setting I used that got a 100% match up on the suspect's 50 move draw):
Here’s the two Rittner games I started with:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264093
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1158516
Analysis was 3 mins per move. Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit showing top 3 moves.
Q9300 quad CPU. 1 GB Hash. WinXP 64-bit
Matchup procedure was that of the deleted thread in order to compare the 97% figure.
26 non-database moves
1st Choice: 16
2nd Choice: 2
3rd Choice: 5
Total: 23/26 or 88%
30 Red8 was a 4th choice. Neither 18 Nb6 or 32 Re8 was one of Fritz's five top choices.
I note the following:
1) This was a highly tactical game unlike the ones of the suspect analyzed;
2) I suspect this was taken for a list of "greatest wins" by Rittner. Obviously those games are going to normally have tactical fireworks which will be reflected in higher matchups (engines don't miss tactics in their horizon);
Even with those factors, the match ups were still lower than in any of the suspect's games analyzed in the thread. Not only weren't they tactical games; one was a 50 move draw (where he matched up 100😵. And 2 of Rittner's 26 moves weren't in Fritz's top five recommendations; NONE of the suspect's over 125 weren't one of Fritz's top 5 suggestions. Plus Rittner's 3rd choice matchups are very high compared to the suspect's - over 85% of his move matched Fritz's first or second choice.
I do not think a comparison of Rittner's and the suspect's game will change the conclusion regarding the latter of any reasonable person looking at the evidence.