Author: odell hall
Date: 15:32:40 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 17:04:21, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) No ofcourse I don't want to rehash the topic, as far as I am concerned it's dead and buried, ofcourse being only human I could not restrain myself on commenting, when this entire newgroup attacked me then, yet I see the same issue mentioned with no condemnination, it just made me wonder.
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.