Author: Hristo
Date: 10:08:22 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 11:15:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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.
I agree that "we _all_ have the right to expect something ...". It makes life
easier and some times more understandable.
My comments were in regard to the peoples reaction when their expectations are
not met. I love chess. I like to win ... and I know I have the power and the
knowledge to do so. Mind you, I have wins against crafty at short controls 10 0
... :) I consider this an achievement. Some times I get beaten(chess servers)
badly and the only thing I want is to win a single game and leave. :))) This is
a real trouble, cause I get stuck for hours ... but it is great FUN when I
finally win.
I know people that get wiped out game after game, day after day, at the end they
would do anything to win a single game. Using computers("illegally") makes this
easy and it is also easy to understand that they(the people using comps) might
get addicted to the feeling ... nobody wants to live a life in the ditch!
Meanwhile my objectives have not changed. If i lose a game it is because I
didn't play strong enough and not because the opponent was too strong.
I like playing people and computers, win feels equally good when the opponent is
strong.
For instance MacChess is incredibly weak and I have to win in under 30 moves to
feel good ... :)))
>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'.
this is a great example of how people perceive things.
Why did I lose? Was it because of this stupid 22... Ne4 that I played or is
because the opponent was ... blah.
We look at the same thing from different angles and we see "slightly" different
things. At the end everybody wants to win and not get crushed like a tomato ..
:))
regards.
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.