Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 07:32:56 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 09:05:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 01:18:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On November 14, 2000 at 17:25:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2000 at 15:08:50, Côme 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... >>>> >>>>Hello ! >>>>Wrong again I think. >>>>How is it possible to have 1800 if you cheat with a computer ? >>>>If you cheat you have a much higer rating. >>>>Best Regards >>>>Alexandre Côme >>> >>> >>>Easy. 5 years ago, you would be correct. But high ratings now draw a lot of >>>attention. You will find that there are just as many cheaters with low ratings >>>as there are with high ratings. They just pick and choose who they cheat >>>against. I have seen more than one such person get caught, where they >>>were cheating in only an occasional game here and there. But the ICC guys >>>try all the commercial programs in their analysis, and they found a 100% >>>match between this cheater and one specific commercial program, but only in >>>about 1 of every 4-5 games... >>> >>>He was playing 17-1800 players and playing reasonably close. He would >>>occasionally play a 2100-2300 player and win easily. A pattern emerged... >> >>Why is this thread about cheating? Someone beats a computer and it's cheater >>cheater cheater. > >I don't buy that line of reasoning, and I didn't say that. I looked at _one_ >game, and was suspicious of the result for several reasons that I gave. I >also said that one game is not enough to be sure. That one game doesn't prove >that he did or didn't cheat. an 1800 player beating a 3000 player (rough ICC >ratings) is unusual. _very_ unusual. > > >> >>And the guy's ICC name was featured in the original post, so he is being tarred >>with this. > > >I didn't look at the PGN, which was unfortunate. And you are right in that >respect. However, I am also not against calling a spade a spade, and in this >game, to me, based on my (and computer) analysis, it looked a bit fishy. It >might be perfectly legit. Or it might not. Can´t you check the time per move used by the "human" player in this game ? More evidence is needed to call him a cheater IMO.. Alvaro > > >> >>The guy isn't a cheater. He's someone who played a decent attack against a >>computer and it worked. > > >I don't think you can conclude that from one game, any more than I could >conclude that he did cheat. > > >> >>I like to play against computers sometimes, and I would hate it if I had to deal >>with a 100-response thread about how some people only cheat sometimes, about how >>cheating is a huge problem, about how hard it is to detect cheaters, the mate in >>7 nonsense, and so on. >> >>If this thread should be about anything, it should be about not letting the >>opponent play f6 when there aren't any good defenders and the enemy queen is in >>the vicinity. >> >>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.