Originally posted by SquelchbelchIM31 probably thought the same thing 3 years ago.
Ok fair enough.
My point was that the thread managed to survive quite a long time considering what was in it.
RHP have already made their stance on the issue perfectly clear to anyone who knows anything about what goes on here & has half a brain.
I can't help thinking that all of this is just a massive waste of time anyway, as no amount of evidence in this case will make any difference IMO.
For the Site Admins, all it takes is a little will and intestinal fortitude to say that no one is exempt from the rules regarding engine use here.
Originally posted by adam warlockCMaster "Agreeing" should not be compared to Engine Match.
[b]CM agreement" is pretty useless, and it by no means constitutes an engine match-up. Anything below 100% means you have blundered badly. Or it could also mean that the CM engine is just too weak to appreciate a good move.
Is this true because The King is a weak engine or because it is true period? I know that for game modding issues you guys co ...[text shortened]... ish questions but some aspects of how engines do their stuff are just alien to me.[/b]
CM takes a look at your moves, and if they are all sound it 'agrees' 100%.
As you saw, the engine chose different moves on it's own, but 'agreed' with your moves being sound.
No relationship to matching at all, you are not the first to be confused by this.
P-
Originally posted by no1marauderNeither do I, but analysis of good CC players from before the engine era might serve to convince the doubting Thomases that engineless CC players do not play like engines.
I do not think a comparison of Rittner's and the suspect's game will change the conclusion regarding the latter of any reasonable person looking at the evidence.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen a 2nd or 3rd choice move is clearly inferior (say 0.5 points) to the 1st or 2nd choice, respectively, but was played, will that be considered?
I ran the first game through Fritz 10 at 30 seconds and 512 MB (the same setting I used that got a 100% match up on the suspect's 50 move draw):
26 non-database moves
1st Choice: 16
2nd Choice: 2
3rd Choice: 5
Total: 23/26 or 88%
30 Red8 was a 4th choice. Neither 18 Nb6 o ...[text shortened]... clusion regarding the latter of any reasonable person looking at the evidence.
Originally posted by no1marauder2 things:
IM31 probably thought the same thing 3 years ago.
For the Site Admins, all it takes is a little will and intestinal fortitude to say that no one is exempt from the rules regarding engine use here.
Admin stance may have changed since then (removed player list gone/Game Mod team disbanded/new enigmatic "fair play" system)
Titled players may be exempt from usual rules - especially if it's obvious who they are - for reasons I touched on earlier in this thread.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by VarenkaThanks. I ran an automated analysis on the 2 games using the same version of Rybka, but at only 30 seconds per move and 256 MB Hash Tables. I have a much inferior computer - a single processor 2.8 Ghz, with 2 GB Ram.
Here’s the two Rittner games I started with:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264093
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1158516
Analysis was 3 mins per move. Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit showing top 3 moves.
Q9300 quad CPU. 1 GB Hash. WinXP 64-bit
Matchup procedure was that of the deleted thread in order to compare the 97% figure.
The results I got were significantly lower:
Overall match statistics for Rittner (2 games):
Top 1 Match: 43/71 ( 60.6% )
Top 2 Match: 55/71 ( 77.5% )
Top 3 Match: 59/71 ( 83.1% )
It's quite likely that the figures would be higher if I gave the computer more time. But I suspect that hardware differences are more important.
Originally posted by VarenkaI did the 2nd game and the results are quite high to wit:
Here’s the two Rittner games I started with:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264093
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1158516
Analysis was 3 mins per move. Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit showing top 3 moves.
Q9300 quad CPU. 1 GB Hash. WinXP 64-bit
Matchup procedure was that of the deleted thread in order to compare the 97% figure.
46 non-database moves
1st: 32
2nd: 9
3rd: 1
Total: 42/46 or 91%
However, I think this is a poor game for comparison purposes. From move 31 on, it is a Q + Ps v. Q + Ps endgame where there are very few reasonable candidate moves. The last 25 moves are all matches with only 3 being 2nd choices. I think all that can be said from this game is that a very strong correspondence player will almost always make the correct move in a simplified end game, but that's not surprising.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe difference between my Fritz match ups in OTB games and my games here is only around 5-10% and I really suck at time pressure OTB. It is true that my blunders are far worse, but there's not much difference in opportunities missed.
Suppose we take an arbitrary player who plays serious OTB and CC games (no engine assistance). I’m suggesting that there will typically be more of an engine matchup with the CC games compared to the OTB games. And hence, CC is more engine-like than OTB play.
In OTB play, time-trouble can mean having seconds to make a move before the flag falls. CC time ...[text shortened]... an OTB game. And again, this extensive analysis raises my CC play closer to that of an engine.
Originally posted by gambit05I agree with this, taking the top 3 engine moves in any match up calculation is skewing things against any strong player as at least 1 of these moves must be on his agenda 90% of the time, surely!
When a 2nd or 3rd choice move is clearly inferior (say 0.5 points) to the 1st or 2nd choice, respectively, but was played, will that be considered?
So what exactly does a 90% match up of the top 3 moves really mean? If it means an engine user what does an 80% match up mean? That 20% of the moves were godamn awful? A beginner obviously!
Originally posted by greenpawn34It's not up to me to disprove your rather silly and unfortunate statement, it's up to you to prove that there aren't many engine users on this site. The fact that anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the top players here are suspected engine cheats should be enough of a clue. Nice try. 🙄
Hi,
I can show you 100's nay 1000's of blunders on this site
where it is plainly obvious no engine was invovled.
Send me one game by PM that is currently being played
(not a proven case from the past - a game being played now)
where you can convince me an engine is at work.
You say the site is teeming with engines - send me one.
I want the ga ...[text shortened]... the powers that be.
(we should both make a mental note never to play him/her).
Good Luck
1 edit
And i believe you have even stated yourself that you only play blitz games for precisely this reason, that you don't want to play an engine user.
As for hearing from me, you won't i don't have a chess engine i don't analyze games, i have not played anyone that has been banned. i am not a suscriber and i only play 6 games at a time, my game load is small.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWe constantly seem to be giving too much importance to match ups.
I ran the first game through Fritz 10 at 30 seconds and 512 MB (the same setting I used that got a 100% match up on the suspect's 50 move draw):
26 non-database moves
1st Choice: 16
2nd Choice: 2
3rd Choice: 5
Total: 23/26 or 88%
30 Red8 was a 4th choice. Neither 18 Nb6 o clusion regarding the latter of any reasonable person looking at the evidence.
Of course they are important and of course they are a major indicator of possible engine use but I have read enough in this thread and others that taking the raw statistics proves nothing as there could be a multitude of good reasons why in any given game or any series of games a high match up (especially with the top 3 moves) is achieved.
It goes without saying that humans and engines play differently and if someone plays like an engine then he is an engine but having a high match up does not in itself indicate engine style play as they may simply be obvious, best or forced moves than any reasonable player should consider.
So now I am going to get slagged off my no1maruder and eldragonfly but, believe me, I want this problem under control as much as you do but when you have a high match up you need to look for other things.
Q > What are other things?
A > Engine moves.
Q > What is an engine move?
A > A move a human, even a very strong human, would not make.
Q > What moves won't a human make?
A > A few examples
1. A human will take the simple and safe line that wins in 15 moves rather than the dangerous tactical line that wins in 8 but where the slightest slip will result in defeat. The engine will take the quick dangerous line;
2. A human will take the line than loses quicker because it creates counter play and the possibility of cheapos (eg back rank mates) whereas an engine will delay defeat as long as possible (eg by pointlessly giving away pieces).
These are 2 examples and I am sure there are others.
So my suggestion is simple
1. Identify suspect players, eg steeply rising graphs, sudden improvements, no defeats, etc.;
2. Analyse their games automatically for high match ups (I don't know what should be considered high, perhaps 70% of 1st choice and 90% of choices 1 - 3;
3. Review cabdidate games for signs of typical engine moves;
4. If a single typical engine move is found that is enough for an immediate ban.
Is this so hard?
OK no1maruder and eldragonfly come along and tell me I'm talking c*** again.