A part of me doesn't want to post this, because it will give cheaters ideas, but chances are very good cheaters know these facts anyways.
How do you detect cheaters? Indeed, it seems hard for not very knowledgable players to understand this. I suppose you think, a computer finds the best moves, so Gary Kasparov must find the best moves too. Chess is not so black and white, many times, there are MANY good moves, usually dependant on the syle of the player, always there is a choice of many bad moves, but then again, some bad moves in the present turn out to be good moves, say 20 moves later, in the future. Chess is complex, there is no such thing as the "ultimate good move" turn after turn, that all good players and machines should find, if that was the case, chess would be nothing but draws and everyone would be playing the same way, obviously chess isn't like that.
For those who can still not comprehend this, let's look at a little simple example: Your friend holds a six phase dice in his hands. He says to you, "I can get a six everytime!" You yell, "Bullshiat!" Your friend then rolls the dice, he gets a six once, twice, three times, you yell, "oh you lucky a*se, you can't get it forever, that's impossible!" So your friend keeps on rolling, it turns out, after 100 tries, he gets a six everytime and claims he has a "strategy" to get a six everytime. Then you yell, "BS, you're cheating!" So then your friend rolls one final time, he lands a five, and he says, "nope, I'm not, see, I cannot be cheating, because I didn't get the six this time!" You then give your friend a glare and hand him a mean stare.
Now, the mathematical probabilities of geting a six 100 times out of 101 are worse then say, winning the lottery or being hit by lighting. You know your friend riged that dice, mind you, you have no real "proof" of this, per say, that is 100% certain, you only have proof that he cheats, that is, 99.99999999999999% certain through mathematical probability.
Chess works the same way, but it's even more massive and the propability even more remote. In chess, you have a 100 phase dice, and certain numbers match up to an engine, let's say 1 and 2 are Fritz, 3 and 4 are Junior, etc, well, if ppl land consistantly on these numbers, then they are likely using that engine. I'm not saying that if you roll the 100 phase dice you will never get a 1,2,3,4, etc as you play, and I'm not saying those who land on those numbers do cheat, in fact, it would go against mathematical probability that you never land on such numbers, however those who land on these numbers 80% of the time (and that's being VERY LENIANT, I WOULD SAY 60% IS MORE THEN ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUSPISION) or more, have likely rigged the chess dice.
Originally posted by mateuloseThis is the type of erroneous statistical argument that confuses people. You are assuming that the chances of a strong player finding the same move as a strong engine are random. They are not. If you give a group of strong players a position they are likely to quickly agree on a limited number of moves as correct ones (usually at a glance) and then will analyze the position to determine which they think is best. To say that a strong player agrees 60% with the moves another strong player would make means that player B MUST be telling Player A what moves to make would be regarded as an absurd conclusion; the argument you're making is analogous with Player B being an engine.
A part of me doesn't want to post this, because it will give cheaters ideas, but chances are very good cheaters know these facts anyways.
How do you detect cheaters? Indeed, it seems hard for not very knowledgable players to understan ...[text shortened]... TO WARRANT SUSPISION) or more, have likely rigged the chess dice.
One of the first chess books I had (which I can't remember the name of) would have you play along in a Grandmaster game and you would get points for matching their moves as each position changed. The book expected you to match up about 80% if you were a strong club player. Obviously the Grandmasters who played the game weren't telling you the moves; you were expected to understand the principles of chess well enough to eventually match the moves most of the time. Thus, I cannot agree with those who insist that a simple match up of moves between a player and an engine is conclusive, though, it would be, of course, relevant evidence. The players experienced in both OTB and with chess engines who will be the Game Mods will be expected to weigh all the relevant evidence before reaching their conclusion and a finding that a player is cheating must be, in Russ' terms, backed by "overwhelming evidence." There is too much loose talk going on about who "must" be cheating when the evidence is, at best, double edged and people like you, Mateulose, are unqualified to make such assertions.
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst of all, the "match the grandmasters" exercises, in say CM10K, are completely rubbish. I don't do them, and do you know why? Because a lot of the "match the grandmasters" is simply you trying to match the playing style of a good player, ie: it's like trying to match an engine, but instead you are matching a human. And in many "match the grandmaster" exercises, they ask me to pick a grandmaster, I suggest moves, and it says crap like, "Leko didn't play this, try again, blah, blah", and guess what, when I finally pull through matching his moves, I find out he LOST the game. So I am going through painful move matching for a grandmaster who obviously made a few mistakes because HE LOST.
This is the type of erroneous statistical argument that confuses people. You are assuming that the chances of a strong player finding the same move as a strong engine are random. They are not. If you give a group of strong player ...[text shortened]... ople like you, Mateulose, are unqualified to make such assertions.
These exercises are simply not cannon for the development of a chess player, asking you to match, say 80% with Gary Kasparov is just stupid. I'm willing to bet Kramnik wouldn't match 80% with Gary, yet both are successful.
Originally posted by mateuloseYour superior training techniques were evident in this game: Game 870894!!!!!!!!!
First of all, the "match the grandmasters" exercises, in say CM10K, are completely rubbish. I don't do them, and do you know why? Because a lot of the "match the grandmasters" is simply you trying to match the playing style of a good player, ie: it's like trying to match an engine, but instead you are matching a human. And in many "match the grandma ...[text shortened]... just stupid. I'm willing to bet Kramnik wouldn't match 80% with Gary, yet both are successful.
You don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
Originally posted by no1marauderAdding salt to the wounds eh? No1marauder, why point out a game I already posted about? What good is it to show it twice?
Your superior training techniques were evident in this game: Game 870894!!!!!!!!!
You don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
Regrardless, you know I am right when I say Kramnik and Kasparov don't match each other.
3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
(b) You will not use chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game (unless expressly agreed prior to any game). Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
(c) You may not threaten or harass other users of this Service.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=harass&r=67
ha·rass ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rs, hrs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
Originally posted by flexmoreDid I threaten No1Marauder? Nope.
3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
(b) You will no ...[text shortened]... onsulted during play
(c) [b]You may not threaten or harass other users of this Service. [/b]
Originally posted by mateuloseBecause it's kinda funny when you spout off about what you do to train as if everybody should nod their head and say "Yup; Mateulose is right" when you keep dropping rocks like this (you lose more games in under 20 moves than any 1600 I know).
Adding salt to the wounds eh? No1marauder, why point out a game I already posted about? What good is it to show it twice?
Regrardless, you know I am right when I say Kramnik and Kasparov don't match each other.
If you set up a middlegame position and asked Kasparov in one room and Kramnik in another what move they would make, I feel pretty certain they'd agree at least 60% of the time. And most of the people talking about engine matches consider it a match if EITHER of the 1st two choices are played; thus, I wouldn't be too surprised if they reached 80-90%. This would be particulary true if they operated under the conditions at RHP with virtually unlimited time for board study and analysis. I'd be interested to hear from some strong players out there to see if they agree with that conclusion.
Originally posted by mateuloseAnother piece of crap from mateulose.
however those who land on these numbers 80% of the time (and that's being VERY LENIANT, I WOULD SAY 60% IS MORE THEN ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUSPISION)
At ForumWars you were more explicit and you got the insults and the scorn you deserve,but here you don't have the balls to post names uh?
I wonder why.............
Following your great theory that 60% match is enough proof half of the top players are suspects uh?
A part of me doesn't want to post this, because it will give cheaters ideas
Uh,what great ideas you're giving to cheats!!
I guess that even Jameswoodley had better ideas than you.
"Because it's kinda funny when you spout off about what you do to train as if everybody should nod their head and say "Yup; Mateulose is right" when you keep dropping rocks like this (you lose more games in under 20 moves than any 1600 I know)."
Yes, I know, I lose most, if not, all the games that I lose the first 20 or so moves. Personally I just want to humor it, it's always been a problem my entire chess career. If I could get over it, who knows, I might be as good as you now, but losing a wack of games in under 20 moves to newbies sure doesn't help the rating, and yes, I have several other funny games like that, one game I took his queen and fell for legal's mate, see if you can find that one, lol.
It's always been a problem, as you could of guessed, on Yahoo my rating is disgusting, because everyone goes for awkward opening cheapos there and tries to win fast. And I still never learn.
I have absolutely no natural talent in anything, everything I do is hard work/a struggle (because I'm disabled), and seeing that there is no book on "how to beat ppl who move their queen out early", I'm stumped, because I have to learn that on my own, through natural play/ability, and I have no talents, so this will probably take forever, and seeing that very few actually move their queen out in the opening, I can't practice it too much naturally anyways. Which is why I post several games of me losing to queen marauders in the opening. I hope my opponents play it on me so I can learn, but they mostly refuse the offer and play book stuff. They are worried I lose on PURPOSE to queen marauders so they can move their queens out early and get easy wins on them. LOL! 😀
Personally, I'm still with the opinion, unless you are in the master class or above, that taking a chance for a queen marauding tactic early is always worth it, if your opponent doesn't spot it, easy, quick, auto-win, if he does, so you are slightly worse, it's not like your masters, you can catch up easily enough. I'm sure you hold a different opinion on this matter, but that's just my experience as a 1600 rater. 😀
Originally posted by RavelloOn ICS, all top players SHOULD be suspects, because the fact of the matter is, engines usually play very well and this is not OTB. It's one of the downsides to being a top player (with numerous upsides), and IMHO, it's no big deal at all and ppl should GET OVER IT. If I was a top player, I would go out of my way to prove I don't cheat and I'm really some super GM, much more is accomplished by that then simply hiding in the shadows, like most top players do for whatever reasons I cannot fanthom.
Another piece of crap from mateulose.
At ForumWars you were more explicit and you got the insults and the scorn you deserve,but here you don't have the balls to post names uh?
I wonder why.............
Following your great theory that 60% match is enough proof half of the top players are suspects uh?
[b]A part of me doesn't want to post this, becau ...[text shortened]... ideas you're giving to cheats!!
I guess that even Jameswoodley had better ideas than you.
Originally posted by mateuloseThis is ridicolous...
On ICS, all top players SHOULD be suspects, because the fact of the matter is, engines usually play very well and this is not OTB. It's one of the downsides to being a top player (with numerous upsides), and IMHO, it's no big deal at all and ppl should GET OVER IT. If I was a top player, I would go out of my way to prove I don't cheat and I'm really so ...[text shortened]... en simply hiding in the shadows, like most top players do for whatever reasons I cannot fanthom.
The top players here do not have to prove they don't cheat. It's up to others to prove that they do cheat if they suspect them.
So he does'nt talk to you, boohoo. This gives you no right to accuse him of cheating. If you have a problem or a good reason to suspect, take it to the game mods.