Originally posted by danilop" It doesn't take more than a few moves to tell a human from a machine."
I think the odds of that happening are pretty low. I've played against GMs and I've played against engines: those are completely different experiences. It doesn't take more than a few moves to tell a human from a machine. There is more than one way to play chess extremely well, and the human way is easily recognizable by humans.
Even if people began to po ess wouldn't have much trouble scoring draws and an occasional win against an engine user.
Wow!Can you teach us?
I could understand a few moves each game and then a lot of games.And even then you'd have to be a very strong player.
"a strong GM could easily provide proof that he is in fact a strong player."
Yes,but that proves nothing.Strong players can use engines too.
"But I suspect that a GM with some experience in correspondence chess wouldn't have much trouble scoring draws and an occasional win against an engine user."
I doubt it.Unless the cheat is a real weak player or doesn't let the engine run long.Or we're talking top GM's,genre Carlsen,Gelfand etc...And even they probably need to know what they're up against.
Also,if the GM would indeed beat the engine it would only make him/her more suspect.
There are multiple ways to cheat using an engine. One way would be to simply play all your moves using one. This would be idiotic. Plug "idiotic engine use" into google and see what pops up. However, of more relevance now, is Ron's promise to "stop using the analyze board" feature and to "stop posting in the chess forum". Having obviously gone back on these two promises how can we believe anything you say now Ron ? Note that you cannot reply without breaking promise number two again.
Originally posted by WilfriedvaI guess most of engine users are weak players, unable to understand that strong humans play not always matches with moves generated by engine. It leads to "idiotic engine use" (c) Zygalski
" It doesn't take more than a few moves to tell a human from a machine."
Wow!Can you teach us?
I could understand a few moves each game and then a lot of games.And even then you'd have to be a very strong player.
"a strong GM could easily provide proof that he is in fact a strong player."
Yes,but that proves nothing.Strong players can use engines to lso,if the GM would indeed beat the engine it would only make him/her more suspect.
This subject has been debated many times & will continue to be so even if /when a solid process is put in place to check out compliants. Past threads have complained that there are systems set up & again their are now NO 'Gate keepers' to such a system/s if indeed their is one. There is to my knowledge no any official line one way or the other.
Therefore YOU - the RHP Community have no choice but to put up with the state of play as it arrives in your in-tray or resign your game immediately stating your reasoning via the fair ticket process.
I would like to think that the process to eliminate engine use is there & tickets are taken as they are found & that there is a silent group of I.T. poeple under the employ of RHP to carry out such a removal.
If there is not a system (in place to check out tickets) it can only be a question of resource & perhaps the T.O.S. should be altered to refect this until the resource can be implemented.
Originally posted by Hells CaretakerThe resources were there. The owners just lost the will to ban cheats. Naturally, the volunteers left in disgust.
This subject has been debated many times & will continue to be so even if /when a solid process is put in place to check out compliants. Past threads have complained that there are systems set up & again their are now NO 'Gate keepers' to such a system/s if indeed their is one. There is to my knowledge no any official line one way or the other.
T ...[text shortened]... e & perhaps the T.O.S. should be altered to refect this until the resource can be implemented.
Originally posted by thaughbaerPrecisely. The honourabe Mr R J Hinds has demonstrated that using
Prejudice against what ? The "analyze board" feature ?
the "analyze board" feature is indistinguishable from using an engine.
The results are identical!
Therefore for all the reasons previously given the "analyze board"
feature should be banned. (And we should all thank RJH for bringing
it to our attention)
Originally posted by thaughbaerIn my case, I believe it is prejudice against an American Christian who is outspoken about how stupid it is to believe in the theory of evolution.
Prejudice against what ? The "analyze board" feature ?
P.S. Here you will find another American Christian, who believes the theory of evolution is stupid:
However, he seems to accept micro-evolution, which I believe is just adaption through breeding.
I guess using an engine is the next step in the evolution of chess.
some people are just more evolved than we chess playing amobeas.
but I get such pleasure in trying to find a move to fit the position.
What satisfaction is there in using someones or something elses move??
Originally posted by RJHindsI just became 50% less intelligent by watching part of this video
In my case, I believe it is prejudice against an American Christian who is outspoken about how stupid it is to believe in the theory of evolution.
P.S. Here you will find another American Christian, who believes the theory of evolution is stupid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
However, he seems to accept micro-evolution, which I believe is just adaption through breeding.
