Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    09 Feb '07 09:43 / 1 edit
    User 33051 has just gone! He was a member since February 2003 and played more than 500 games....

    Don't know the fellow and never played him but it makes me wonder! Are there any people out there?
  2. Standard member JDK2
    Trainee Party Animal
    09 Feb '07 10:23
    Hmm, in the same clan as TRACKHEAD21. I wondered where I saw that name before. They seem to cluster.

    The good sign is that the game mods are working overtime at the moment So you will be eventually left with people to play.
  3. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    09 Feb '07 10:26 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by JDK2
    Hmm, in the same clan as TRACKHEAD21. I wondered where I saw that name before. They seem to cluster.

    The good sign is that the game mods are working overtime at the moment So you will be eventually left with no people to play.
    Edited for accuracy.

    No one above 2000 will be left to play the way this is going.

    Perhaps they cluster because they are all the same person.
  4. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    09 Feb '07 10:58
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    User 33051 has just gone! He was a member since February 2003 and played more than 500 games....

    Don't know the fellow and never played him but it makes me wonder! Are there any people out there?
    "Is there really any way to cheat in this game aside from using a program to think for you?

    That doesn't even cheat your opponent! It just provides him with a better game than he'd get from playing someone who has to cheat to win in the first place."
    EddieT RIP

    D
  5. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    09 Feb '07 11:08
    I have played 4 games with him. 1 win (he blundered very silly), 1 lost (due to unlucky opening experiment he got advantage and exploited it in endgame) and 2 draws (first was repeating of moves in equal middle game position, in second I got exchange for the pawn, but he had enough compensation for it).
  6. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    09 Feb '07 11:15
    Originally posted by Korch
    I have played 4 games with him. 1 win (he blundered very silly), 1 lost (due to unlucky opening experiment he got advantage and exploited it in endgame) and 2 draws (first was repeating of moves in equal middle game position, in second I got exchange for the pawn, but he had enough compensation for it).
    That doesn't actually sound like someone who is cheating. Engines don't make tactical blunders, humans do (even strong players can and do make silly elementary blunders - they can leave a piece en prise or miss a mate in 1, they just don't do it as often as a novice).

    You experimented and were punished (I have lost track of how many times my speculative moves were bad and a 1600 player beat me) - again a human traint.

    The 2 draws also seem pretty normal.

    So nothing there to bust the guy. I assume you didn't feel he was cheating at the time?
  7. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    09 Feb '07 11:50
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    That doesn't actually sound like someone who is cheating. Engines don't make tactical blunders, humans do (even strong players can and do make silly elementary blunders - they can leave a piece en prise or miss a mate in 1, they just don't do it as often as a novice).

    You experimented and were punished (I have lost track of how many times my speculati ...[text shortened]... nothing there to bust the guy. I assume you didn't feel he was cheating at the time?
    [/i][/b]
    I think you mix what is possible and what is likely. it's possible that a 2200 does those things during only four games, but it's more likely that he won't. engines don't make tactical blunders, but a cheater not bothering to fire up his fritz does. a perpetual in an equal position also sounds like the engine evaluating repetition as slightly better than other alternatives, because it can't really see very far nor understand the nature of the position. a human plays on in an equal position, an engine draws by repetition every time if the 0.00-line happens to score best only by 0.01 margin. if you added 0.01 to every line in that same position, it wouldn't draw until a draw was forced.

    the things korch mentioned are no proof, but would certainly make me suspicious enough to check out some of his other games.
  8. 09 Feb '07 11:56
    Who said this infamous saying? Cookies and milk for whoever gets it right!


    "Is there really any way to cheat in this game aside from using a program to think for you?

    That doesn't even cheat your opponent! It just provides him with a better game than he'd get from playing someone who has to cheat to win in the first place."
  9. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    09 Feb '07 11:56
    Originally posted by wormwood
    a perpetual in an equal position also sounds like the engine evaluating repetition as slightly better than other alternatives, because it can't really see very far nor understand the nature of the position. a human plays on in an equal position, an engine draws by repetition every time if the 0.00-line happens to score best only by 0.01 margin. if you added 0.01 to every line in that same position, it wouldn't draw until a draw was forced.
    To a certain expent I take the point. Some positions where a draw by repetition is possible the position is suffiently vague for a human not to assess the repetition as best. If, however, I had the opportunity to take a draw by repetition in such a position against a player graded 200 above me I would take it. If he was 200 below me I would try and find a good, slightly inferior move so long as I felt it could result in an improvement in my chances. Sometimes, however, I just feel I am making no progress, can find nothing better, and take the draw.
  10. Standard member Korch
    Chess Warrior
    09 Feb '07 12:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    To a certain expent I take the point. Some positions where a draw by repetition is possible the position is suffiently vague for a human not to assess the repetition as best. If, however, I had the opportunity to take a draw by repetition in such a position against a player graded 200 above me I would take it. If he was 200 below me I would try and find ...[text shortened]... times, however, I just feel I am making no progress, can find nothing better, and take the draw.
    Look at these 4 games and judge yourself.

    My win - Game 2941645
    My lose - Game 2941644
    Draw with move repetition - Game 2938844
    Second draw - Game 2938843

    I need to say that I hadn`t suspicion due to his blunder in first game.
  11. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    09 Feb '07 14:05
    Originally posted by Teshuvah
    Who said this infamous saying? Cookies and milk for whoever gets it right!


    "Is there really any way to cheat in this game aside from using a program to think for you?

    That doesn't even cheat your opponent! It just provides him with a better game than he'd get from playing someone who has to cheat to win in the first place."
    EddieT -- December 8, 2003.
  12. 09 Feb '07 14:07
    I played him over a year ago. An inexplicable EddieT blunder on move 19.

    Game 1504078
  13. 09 Feb '07 14:10
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    EddieT -- December 8, 2003.
    at 12.47 lol

    Just bumped the thread for fun
  14. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    09 Feb '07 14:14
    Originally posted by Regicidal
    I played him over a year ago. An inexplicable EddieT blunder on move 19.

    Game 1504078
    An engine wouldn't do that.

    Chess blindness is, however, something we all suffer from. Even Kramnik can miss a mate in 1 so a lesser player being focused on a fork of the Rook and Pawn and the double attack on the Rook could perhaps overlook the small matter of a pawn capture.

    I've done it. haven't we all. Inexplicable blunders do not a cheater make!
  15. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    09 Feb '07 14:28
    Let me get this straight.

    Top players have to prove they are top players and not computers by never blundering?