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
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).
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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!
09 Feb '07 09:431 edit
Yet another 2200+ player banned
Back to Top