Only Chess
09 Feb 07
09 Feb 07
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?
09 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by JDK2Edited for accuracy.
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.
No one above 2000 will be left to play the way this is going.
Perhaps they cluster because they are all the same person.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by Dragon Fire"Is there really any way to cheat in this game aside from using a program to think for you?
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?
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
09 Feb 07
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).
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by KorchThat 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).
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).
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?
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireI 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.
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]
the things korch mentioned are no proof, but would certainly make me suspicious enough to check out some of his other games.
09 Feb 07
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."
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by wormwoodTo 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.
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.
09 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireLook at these 4 games and judge yourself.
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.
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.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by TeshuvahEddieT -- December 8, 2003.
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."
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by RegicidalAn engine wouldn't do that.
I played him over a year ago. An inexplicable EddieT blunder on move 19.
Game 1504078
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!
