Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:44:27 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 12:57:54, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>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.
I generally consider _all_ decent computers to be around 3000 on ICC. Some
are not due to operator actions such as switching hardware, etc. But if they
all played for a good long while, I can't imagine any really staying below
3000 or so...
>
>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.
I don't doubt that. However, as I said before, this has nothing to do with
the first game discussed. Cheating on one of every N games is not uncommon.
And when I originally wrote that first post, 'cheating' wasn't really the
issue. IE I wasn't trying to label the human as a cheater. I was trying to
point out that drawing a conclusion from an 1800 player beating a computer is
not always safe, because many times, that 1800 player has some silicon behind
him...
The thread diverged at that point, partly my fault no doubt, because I didn't
word things very carefully. But the above was my original point, _not_ the
fact that I think the human cheated. I ran a quick tactical check, on a single
game, didn't find any errors, and suggested that this _could_ be a computer
rather than a human. One game isn't enough. But for the original point of
the thread, it was a (to me) reasonable remark to make...
>
>>>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 fact that for 30+ moves I found _zero_ tactical mistakes of any kind, in
a fairly fast blitz game. Unusual. Very unusual.
>
>>>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.
I didn't suggest evil or devious intent at all. I pointed out that when a
computer loses to a supposedly weak human, quite often things are not what they
seem. And concluding that Tiger had therefore played weakly might not be a
good assumption. IE when I wrote the post, the subject was "did tiger play
bad enough to get beat by a weaker human?" Not "did this human cheat to beat
tiger?" I merely suggested that this latter conclusion is possible, so that
the original conclusion about tiger playing weakly could be seen "in context".
>
>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
If it was my intention to "out a cheater" I am much more thorough. That wasn't
my intent...
>
>[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.