Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:10:04 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 18:43:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 17:27:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 14, 2000 at 15:07:37, Côme wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2000 at 14:18:08, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2000 at 13:11:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 13:00:53, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 12:54:00, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 12:18:05, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>After move 18 there is _no_ improvement. I have no doubts about wicker-man being >>>>>>>>a computer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Being rated on ICC at 1800 is like being rated about 1400-1500 on FICS. There is >>>>>>>>almost no possible way for that type player to beat todays programs. I would >>>>>>>>inform speedtrap of his actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's a very speculative foundation for reporting another player. If he did the >>>>>>>same against human opposition, his rating probably wouldn't be as low as it is. >>>>>>>Besides, what's the big deal in cheating on a computer program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mogens. >>>>>> >>>>>>It´s a big deal because the program expects to play a human opponent and when >>>>>>the person who is running the (C)(in this case Rebel Tiger) analyzes the games >>>>>>played against humans, he will analyze this game too and import it to a database >>>>>>with all human opponents. So, he will get wrong results.. Allthough, it´s just >>>>>>one game but if everybody cheats, then the results against humans will be >>>>>>completly worthless. IMO >>>>>> >>>>>>Alvaro >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If you play 1800-level players on ICC, FICS or chess.net, this is just a fact >>>>>of life. You _are_ going to play computer cheaters. There are far more >>>>>cheaters at the lower ratings (there are also far more players down there too, >>>>>of course). >>>>> >>>>>It is a huge problem... >>>> >>>>I played in zone some months ago, and the computer cheaters there where all >>>>rated above 2100+, which was a high rating then, probably in the top 100 on the >>>>site. I don´t understand how the computer cheaters can be rated 1800 on ICC, >>>>that´s low for a program ! Do they play advanced chess or do they play every >>>>move suggested by the program ? I´m confused. >>>> >>>>Alvaro >>> >>>Hello ! >>>You are right Alvaro 1800 players don't use computers if they use computer >>>they will have a higher rating for sure. >>>Best Regards >>>Alexandre Côme >> >> >>(a) you are assuming they cheat in every game. This is rarely so; >> >>(b) you are assuming they use the computer for every move. This is also >>not always the case. >> >>simple cheaters get caught quickly. The ones that are more selective in >>their cheating take much longer to catch. But they definitely do exist. > >The guy who played this game is taking a lot of hell (by implication) for >nothing, and almost all of it is from you. Way too much hyperbole in that statement. He isn't getting any "hell" from me at all. I said that the game looks suspicious. I _still_ feel that it does. I also said that more games were needed to be sure. I _still_ feel that way as well. > >There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates the person who played that >game used any kind of outside assistance, or cheated in any way. An opinion, just like mine. Either (or neither) could be correct. When I "annotate" a game electronically, and find no mistakes, it tickles my "interesting" filter. The mate in 7 was actually non-important. I didn't look at the position down there, and didn't notice that it was a trivial set of spite-checks prior to losing. But the overall game might (or might not) have computer assistance. I raised the idea due to the original premise that "Tiger gets smashed by an 1800 player". It could be a poor evaluation in that game. Or it could be that the human didn't make any mistakes for a reason. Both are speculation, only. > >It was a perfectly nice anti-computer game, jeez. It there is going to be a >thread about people cheating with computers, it should probably be a different >thread. This one should be about how computers sometimes get mated by >A-players. > >bruce
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.