Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:04:21 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 15:45:38, odell hall wrote: >On August 24, 1999 at 14:05:06, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On August 24, 1999 at 13:24:38, rich wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>> So if someone doesn't drop a piece in a blitz game against Crafty that person >>>is likely to have cheated.?!?? Get a grip.Could it be that you are simply >>>underestimating human tactical ability?I know some players that are tactical >>>genuises with ~1900 elo and no better because they are bad strategicallly. >> >>I think it is not Robert underestimating human tactical ability, but you >>drastically overestimating it. Even tactical geniuses need time. To not drop a >>pawn in a complex position in 3 to 7 seconds (the range of time used by the >>person James was talking about) is the work of someone who is extremely >>experienced in chess (i.e. GM level) or the work of a cheater. I doubt very much >>you know tactical geniuses with ~1900 elo (i.e. they may be sharp, but they are >>not geniuses or their rating would be much higher) since computers can play 2300 >>elo as tactical geniuses without having a shread of strategy in them. >> >>Bobby Fischer once missed a mate in one in a standard time game. How can someone >>of his calibre miss a mate in one? I forget who the players were (one of them >>may have been Fine) where one GM missed a mate in two followed by his opponent >>missing a mate in two. And these are GMs we are talking about. >> >>It is unreasonable to think that even a tactical genius will be 100% sharp >>throughout one entire blitz game, let alone three in a row. If a player takes 4 >>to 5 seconds for most every move, does not make any minor tactical mistakes (I'm >>talking 1/4 pawn here, not even a full pawn), then the handwriting is on the >>wall. People can claim that it's "possible" for these types of events to occur, >>but statistically speaking, people have been sent to jail on a lot less evidence >>and on less probable of events. >> >>Note: This person took 5 seconds on 12 of the first 21 moves. He then took 4 >>seconds on 14 of the last 19 moves. This implies someone getting more and more >>used to operating a program in the background. The consistency of time, lack of >>quick 1 or 2 second moves, and lack of moves over 7 seconds is extremely >>noteworthy in a blitz game. Go check out a bunch of GM games against computers >>and see if they are as consistent. >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >Karinsday, I can hardly believe that it is you I am hearing saying these things, >especially in light of the extremely hard time you gave me about five months ago >on this very issue, I had as much proof or more, yet you continually told me >that I cannot prove that the person I named was cheating!!! Odell, I looked it up (posts 46628, 46630, etc.). Our contention was not on whether you proved the person cheated or not. Our contention was on naming the chess server handle of the cheater here on this forum. You thought it was fine. I did not. I did mention in ONE of those many posts that you did not prove that the person you named was cheating, but I posted that statement due to missing one of your other posts and I apologized for posting that statement at the time. I have repeatedly said (then and now) that discussing the issue and looking at the data is fine. I just thought then (and now) that it is inappropriate to name server handles (and please, let's not start that one up again). I hope you re-evaluate my "flakiness". :) KarinsDad :)
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.