Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:00:18 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 10:32:56, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >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 > I mentioned this earlier. The time per move wasn't included, so that was not data that I used. It _is_ important data. But even with the time per move, I always look at four or more games before I become convinced. In this discussion, someone was concerned that Tiger got rolled by an 1800 player. I pointed out that this _might_ not actually be what happened. I didn't look at the mate in 7 at all, other than to note that the game went mate in 7-6-5-4-3-2-1 which is strange for most mates. For this one, it was not so strange since it was mostly spite checks. I still find it unusual that an 1800 player played without making any tactical mistakes I could find with a computer, for almost 40 moves. That _is_ unusual. At this fast time control it is even _more_ unusual. But not 100% convincing of course. I wish I hadn't said anything without more data. I didn't notice that the ICC handle was given. Generally when I post PGN I wipe out the name to protect the innocent (or guilty). :) In the context of discovering 'cheaters' one game is useless. In the context of showing that a computer can be rolled by an 1800 player, knowing more about the player is critical. Which is why I took the time to go over the white moves in that game. Tiger plays very well. Well enough that I found it difficult to believe it fell into such a loss. It is _definitely_ possible that it can happen. The Trojan Horse is the common way to beat programs at very fast time controls (this wasn't a trojan attack of course). I was trying to pull the thread "back on center" a bit... Tiger is not the best thing ever done. Neither is it the worse, which this game might suggest. >> >> >>> >>>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.