Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:09:30 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 16:44:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 12:57:54, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>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... The program runs on a 450 mhz machine and the account will play low-rated people. >>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... http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?138536 Your first post on the issue. "It is highly likely that the opponent used a computer here. I base this on a couple of things. Near the end, there is a deep mate. He played it _perfectly_. Which I don't think an 1800 player could do. If I were betting, I would bet that white is a computer." and "However, on the other hand, Tiger was playing a computer in human clothing. Nothing good can come of that, and drawing conclusions is harder. I would _never_ believe than an 1800 player can beat today's programs." There is more. The whole post is essentially an accusation that the guy was using a computer. >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... See above. >>>>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. There were only a few actual moves in the game. He lumped around in the middlegame and then the computer killed itself. >>>>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". Just look at the game. It is very obvious what happened. 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.