Author: Mike S.
Date: 13:11:26 03/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 21:15:56, Bob Durrett wrote: >(...) >Ultimately, the middlegame and endgame moves played, and the times taken, are >compared to a chess engine. If an engine is found which more or less matches >the play of the accused [especially if it occurs in many games of the accused], >then this finding is taken as very strong evidence of guilt. > >There is MUCH more to it than that. I hope there is much more to be done than just to see if the moves match an engine's moves, because that is just what we expect from good engines: That their moves match those which strong players would choose. By that method, you could check many master's games and detect them as computer cheater, exspecially sacrifice games of the past... i.e., such a method might "prove" that Anderssen, Zukertort or Chigorin have cheated by using Fritz during their games, because Fritz (or almost any other strong engine) will find all of their critical moves more or less quickly. Like Qb4!! in Zukertort - Blackburne, or the whole Steinitz - Von Bardeleben combination, and the like. The minimum is to take the thinking time into consideration the server player has used. If he has found a whole series of moves of the Qb4 difficulty in 2 seconds each, than I'd say too that it is evidence. Rega
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.