Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:57:54 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:
>>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.
If you want to use numbers, be more careful with the numbers. You could have
said it the way it is, or you could have understated the distance between the
ratings, or you could have overstated the distance.
It doesn't help your case that you start out by overstating. Was the computer's
rating 3000? Was the human's rating 1800? This can easily be verified by
looking at the ICC history.
The human's rating was 1884, prior to the game. The computer's rating was 2645.
This is a big delta, but not the 1200 points you suggest. It is 761 points.
If you look today, which you can do, nobody is stopping you, the human is up to
2001 points. He beat Hossa in a 4 0 and he beat another human near his rating
in several games of 3 0.
The game against Hossa is appended at the end of this post. It is a human game.
>>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.
This is insane, Bob. Yesterday you as much as admited that your "mate in 7"
argument doesn't fly, because you actually looked at the end of the game and
realized that a C player could play those moves. And you looked at the rest of
the game, and the other game I showed. What, other than the result, are you
having a hard time swallowing?
>>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.
Things happen but you can't start talking about evil and devious intent until
you have some reason to do it.
Imagine you are playing a GM with your computer. Your computer wins. Someone
immediately says that the computer got help from an outside source. How would
you feel if the reaction you got from others was that this could neither be
proven or disproven, so we just don't know?
No, they can't do that to you. There has to be something other than intuition
and a suspicious nature before this should be allowed to stick to you.
You brought up this cheater issue and you have nothing to back it up. You
didn't look at the game carefully. You didn't examine the time allocation, even
though this game and seven others were in the guy's history. You didn't look at
the other games.
You can't do this, it's no better than Hans and Cray Blitz, or Kasparov and Deep
Blue, or more recently Vincent and Junior.
bruce
[Event "ICC 4 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2000.11.15"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Hossa"]
[Black "WICKER-MAN"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2490"]
[BlackElo "1952"]
[Opening "Sicilian: Kan, 5.Bd3"]
[ECO "B42"]
[NIC "SI.42"]
[Time "01:08:43"]
[TimeControl "240+0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Qc7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Qe2 d6 8.
Bg5 Be7 9. Nd2 O-O 10. c3 b5 11. Rfd1 Nc6 12. Nxc6 Qxc6 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. e5
Bxe5 15. Be4 d5 16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Qxe5 f6 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Nb3 e5 20. Rab1
Be6 21. Rd2 a5 22. f4 a4 23. Nc1 Bf7 24. Qf5 Rfe8 25. Nd3 Be6 26. Qh5 Bf7
27. Qg4 exf4 28. Nxf4 Re4 29. Rf2 Rae8 30. Qd1 Qc5 31. Nd3 Qe3 32. Qf1 d4
33. a3 dxc3 34. Rc1 Bc4 35. Rxc3 Rd8 36. Nb4 Qxc3 37. bxc3 Bxf1 38. Rxf1 Re2
39. Kh1 Rdd2 40. Rg1 Re3 41. Ra1 Rxc3 42. Kg1 Rb3 43. g3 Rdb2 44. Nc6 Rb1+
45. Rxb1 Rxb1+ 46. Kf2 Rb2+ 47. Kg1 Rb3 48. Nd4 Rxa3 49. Kf1 b4 50. Ke2 b3
51. Kd3 Ra2 52. Nf3 Rf2 53. Nd2 b2 54. Nb1 Rf1 55. Kc2 Rf2+ 56. Kd3 Rxh2 57.
Kc3 Rg2 58. g4 Kf7 59. g5 fxg5 60. Kb4 Rf2 61. Kxa4 g4 62. Nc3 g3 63. Ne4
b1=Q 64. Nc3 Qc2+ 65. Kb4 Rf4+ 66. Ne4 Rxe4+ 67. Kb5 Qa4+ 68. Kb6 Re6+ 69.
Kc5 Qc6+ 70. Kb4 Re4+ 71. Kb3 Qc4+ 72. Kb2 Re2+ 73. Kb1 Qc2+ 74. Ka1 Qa2#
{White checkmated}
0-1
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.