Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 16:07:08 08/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2000 at 17:40:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 18, 2000 at 16:42:19, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: > >>On August 18, 2000 at 15:53:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2000 at 14:10:42, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2000 at 07:22:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 18, 2000 at 02:57:48, hashimoto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it possible to tell whether players are using computer instead of >>>>>>their brain when playing chess on the net? >>>>> >>>>>Sure, just post the moves and the time a person needed a move, >>>>>and it's a piece of cake usually to see whether it's a computer. >>>> >>>>What`s the difference in your opinion between humans and programs in this >>>>matter? Are the programs slower in the opening? Does the human instantly answer >>>>to an exchange? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Alvaro >>> >>>Oh well, let's quote Bruce Moreland on this. >>> >>>If i give away a queen at move 4 in a real silly way, then Kasparov >>>will directly chop off the queen. A program will think for 3 minutes. >>> >>>Basically time division is an important issue if they 100% use >>>the ocmputer. >>> >>>usually computercheaters KICK that much on egorating heigth, or their >>>dick's height, whatever, they kick on it. They will learn that always >>>doing the computermove getsthem a higher rating, so they will do >>>all moves with computer, so they are forced to use the computer division >>>of time, or their rating goes down. >>> >>>So a lineair division of time, like the first 20 moves nearly all moves >>>at exactly 8 seconds a move, that's a clear case. >>> >>>That's usually a DOS program. Usually Rebel10. >> >>It´s much difficult to catch the "smart" cheaters, those who use a program 50 % >>of the time... If he/she uses the program after the opening, it`s hard to even >>think he/she uses a program.. The first moves very fast, and after 10-15 moves, >>start using a program..I think it´s dificult here.. >> >>What if the cheater use an automatic program ? >> >>Regards, >>Alvaro > >automatic chess programs play the first 20 book moves within 0 seconds, >so no problems there. > >As i said, most cheaters want to much. they don't cheat 1 or 2 moves >a game. There are some hard to catch cases of course, like ZXL2 at >icc is such a cheater. Don't know whether he's still doing it, but >he sure is computer helped. I don`t really understand why they cheat anyway... They pay money to play in ICC and then they cheat ! ´They don´t even play themselves, they let a program play for them ! They don`t win price-money AFAIK. > >But there are few humans on this world who grew up in small villages >where very little strong chess players were, so they just didn't >learn any strategics or anything like that. > >Like some IM from Southern Africa, and many players from Sweden and >such countries. REAL strong players, who look like an idiot in opening, >but then play like a young god on earth. > >A good example of such an IM is IM Meijers from Letland. Man he's strong >Note he's nearly GM. > >I played one of the best games of the past 2 years against him, yet >at move 35 or something i played Qc2? instead of Qa3. So whole game >i slowly got better and better, but all lines he had seen REAL deep. > >as if he had an internal computer! But he obviously is not a computercheater! >He's simply REAL STRONG! > >One of the few games he lost that tournament was against a GM from Israel. >He offered in a LOST position a draw to meijers. Meijers was furious that >in a won position he got a draw offer against him. Professional players >are like that simply. Don't insult their technique to end the game, >or to play on in a dead drawn rook endgame (like marc uniacke >insulted anand to his bones by playing on in Aegon 96 or 97 in a dead >simple drawn rook endgame)! However Meijers was so upset about this >that he then directly blundered and lost the game. You have to admit that the GM from Israel was a smart guy... Maybe he knew that Meijers was a "sensitive" player, so the GM tried to get Meijers out of the game.. > >So after all we are all humans, but some strong players get sometimes >wrong insulted. > >Also a guest playing zchess recently was perhaps such an example, or >it was a computer helped guest, one of the above cases. > >Now this guy kicked butt of zchess, though he managed to lose still a few >games where he was clearly won and had outplayed the computer completely. > >So unless this guest was Shirov or Illescas, or a GM in big shape, >it was a computer cheater then. Yet 99.999% of all cheats i saw so far >were easy to proof using time division. ZXL and a certain MrZ at the >icc server were a few of the hard cases. Why were they hard to catch? > >Now blitzin has quite a number of features to detect cheaters. > >Like at startup it collects all the names of all executables on the >harddisk, and it monitors all running processes system time and such, >probably a lot of other things also. > >So the simple cheats are quickly filtered away. FICS is a lot harder. >You can register any account.I have about 20 email adresses i can use, >and another couple of hundreds of aliasses, so if i wanted to cheat, >then i could cheat easily for a couple of years. I haven´t played at FICS but in chess.net they can detect if someone is switching aplications. It could be icq or a program.. Obviously, if someone is using two computers, they have to use the "time-method"... > >Changing your IP is real simple. > >Yet i do not do that. I'm not a cheater! >I also do not play if i play myself for my rating. >I have teammembers at icc server on average 200 points above me, >yet in blitz at the club otb, there i usually do real good in >blitz events. Out of 3 qualifications last year i won 2, i ended second >at one. That's a total of 39 blitz games. > >In big blitz events i kick even more butt otb. My rating there is about 2500. >Note you need to take such ratings with salt, as most victories have >little to do with chess, but simply because opponents panic when in time >trouble. > >Some people are good to complicate positions without tactical losing them >soon. I happen to be one of them as i play caro-kann and the classical >slav variation myself. > >Yet such openings it's real hard to cheat with. If i would use a computer >in the slav, then it would be caught right away! > >As it sees tactical everything there, and it's another 500 points >better at least in defending such positions! Now take into account that >i consider myself to be not a bad blitzer, but in these openings i play >i lose everything to the computer! > >Only the 1...e6! setup with black i can score sometimes against a computer >in blitz with. White is easier, but what i play against humans with >black, if iplay that with either side against the computer, then i >get completely raped and forfeited. If you play the sicilian against a computer, it`s almost impossible to win... I good opening I think is to answer 1.e4/d4 with d6, trying to play the pirc... Then, you´ll probably get a chance to play f5, and then f4 might come and the kingside pawns can be launched at the white king..Some program make bad moves, such as h3 and g3, and black has big chances of winning the game..But often, you get to stressed and try to attack as fast as possible..You have to be patient. > >so practical the difference between humans and computers in blitz is that >huge, that it makes no sense to use a program just a few moves, >because you can have only 3 results in a game. > >win/draw/loss. a computer cheater is busy with the result: winning. >So within 2 games he'll play all moves with the computer in blitz as >the difference in playing strengths is too huge, usually over a 1000 points >at least. Most strong blitz players don't like to cheat at all. > >Only forms of cheating that are NOT nice at icc are so called 'premovers'. I´m not familiar with the so called "premovers" Vincent, could you explain it to me? Regards, Alvaro > >That's a form of cheating much more effective as using a computer, without >getting caught soon. > >Note that there are guys like Andrew Dados here who love to play against >premovers, but that's a completely different discussion! I tried it >against him with a special winboard version i could download somehwere >and indeed, he knows how to handle premovers!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.