Author: Hristo
Date: 09:28:52 03/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 16:42:42, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 24, 1999 at 16:21:03, Mike Castañuela wrote: > > >>I support you. >>I have followed this discussion and I do not see sense >>to as much noise by anything. >>At the end facts always count, and you only have given an nickname, >>no name, of someone that, of another way, anyone would be >>thanked for to know that, to enter the club, he is, of sure, >>a cheater (facts proven courtesy of Paulo). > >Proven? > >How so? > >I do not dispute Paulo's findings, but if you ask anyone who has checked >computer games before, they will tell you that: > >1) You should base it off of more than one game. >2) You should check for yourself and not take someone else's word. >3) You should use the times as indicators. The times as posted could be a human, >or could be a computer (since it was a G10+18 game as opposed to G5). > >Only one person has posted that he has checked the games with Fritz. But there >are some confusing things to this: > >If Paulo played the game as stated (before the times for CM4000 and the other >player were announced), then how much time did Paulo wait before entering in his >moves? If he took very little time, then his Fritz would have had less time to >ponder. So how is it that even the short duration moves were the same? This is a >little confusing. How is it that Fritz makes identical moves on Paulo's computer >and also on an unknown system? Usually, even the same program will make some >different moves if it has different parameters (such as running on a different >machine). 100% is strange to me. However, I have heard that programs will play >the same moves, but I was under the impression that conditions would have to be >similar. So if I am way off base here, please, Robert or Bruce, let me know. > >What if a second person checked Fritz and came back with a 60% match. What would >that say? Anything? > >What Paulo did was supply supporting data for Odell's suspicion. He did not >prove anything. > >KarinsDad Isn't this funny and silly ?! These people go about analyzing and "proving" that somebody cheated in totaly meaningless situation. Where the "same" people are ready to condemn Kasparov for accusing IBM of cheating. The stackes were *much* higher and the stress for Kasparov was *real*. Playing chess(or any other game) on the internet should be nothing more than FUN. If somebody used a computer it does not hurt anybody ... the general mentality and etiquette might discourage certain behavior, but there is no harm done. The interesting thing is how sensitive are people towards injustice (proven or suspected) and how easy it is to become unjust trying to convince others. Cheers. Hristo
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.