Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:15:28 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 1999 at 12:28:52, Hristo wrote: >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 Sorry but I disagree. When I play chess, I play chess. Not 'meaningless chess'. And when I play, I expect some idea of who I am playing. IE I used to play a Fide master on ICC all the time, before he left, and had a lot of fun playing him (we both liked wild openings and often about broke even with each other in 5 0 type games). And we enjoyed attacking, and exploiting blunders and so forth (yes, a FM hangs his queen on occasion. :) ) But to play someone with a rating that says '2200' and to get totally rolled up into a little ball, and after studying the game become aware you are warring with a computer, is not what I call 'acceptable'. I believe that I have the right to my expectation of what I am playing. Yes I once got matched by a very low rated player, got killed, then got a 'gotcha bob, guess who this is?' and it was a GM. We had a chuckle. I wouldn't have been quite so amused had it been a 'crafty in disguise' player, or any other computer opponent. If I want to play a computer, I will, and I do on occasion, just to see how something else will handle a certain type of opening or attack. But I believe we _all_ have the right to expect something about the characteristics of the opponent we are playing. And if it doesn't say (C), then it ought not be a (C), period. If I want to play a computer, I'll likely do it offline at home. Find humans is harder, and is why ICC 'works' so well. I see no reasonable excuse of "I didn't know I had to have a (C)" because you are greeted with messages telling you then when you first register, and 'help computer' tells you everything you need to know. If someone uses a computer, I really don't think there is a lot of 'ignorance of the rules' involved. I think it is primarily intentional. And absurd.
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.