Originally posted by Diet CokeIf they never blunder doesn't that make them (probably) an engine.
Let me get this straight.
Top players have to prove they are top players and not computers by never blundering?😕
Seems damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Based on available evidence, we are all cheating.
Originally posted by Dragon FireGame 1615275
If they never blunder doesn't that make them (probably) an engine.
Seems damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Based on available evidence, we are all cheating.
Say it ain't so...:'(
Originally posted by wormwoodWhat would happen if somone dossed around for, say a year, then started getting some training from a GM and improved steadily?
you need to work out the difference between evidence and a hint.
Should he start a new user lest his old games start giving out hints that he is a computer user?
Originally posted by wormwoodIf what you are saying (and I suspect it is) that you don't play like a patzer one day and a GM the next then I agree. Such a sudden and dramatic improvement evidenced by a long string of games (at patzer level) suddening becoming a long string of games (at GM level) would indicate definate abuse. Any such improvement would be slow (over years not months) if at all as I believe that a GM has a latent ability way above patzer level without ever studying so, whilst he may play unorthodox, he would never play at patzer level.
you need to work out the difference between evidence and a hint.
Such an improvement in play would provide a strong hint that abuse is possible. Analysis of a significant number of games would then be required to prove this.
Originally posted by Diet CokeAnything and everything...of course.
What else do people cheat at?😕
Put 15,000 people "together" for ANY type of activity and a certain percentage are going to cheat...... chess is no different than track and field, swimming, cycling, baseball...etc...the higher one climbs in the rankings the more likely it will be get caught. Human nature.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon Fireexactly. when I see someone's established rating suddenly taking off, my first reaction is to take a peek at the dates to get a clue if it happened overnight, or if he had reasonable time to improve. many initially suspicious looking graphs span over years and might even have long periods off rhp, so usually it turns out the 'sudden' improvement is perfectly reasonable given the time frame it took. but if the improvent happens 'too fast' I'll take a closer look at some games.
If what you are saying (and I suspect it is) that you don't play like a patzer one day and a GM the next then I agree. Such a sudden and dramatic improvement evidenced by a long string of games (at patzer level) suddening becoming a long string of games (at GM level) would indicate definate abuse...
I would probably be somewhat suspicious about my own graph. 🙂 enough so, that I would check the dates. seeing the rise has happened over a year would then satisfy me... but if it happened over a month, I would definitely check some games with fritz.