Apology to Tmetzler

Originally posted by DeepThought
Being seen making moves without an engine present is proof of nothing, he could have done the analysis earlier and made game notes and used them, or just played opening moves at the times when he made moves in public.

Or maybe, just maybe, he thought of the moves himself...

Originally posted by pineapple42
so how would the analyse board help detect cheating? every time a player looks at the analyse board that's suspicious?

I think what Rag means is that a 2400+ player would be expected to think out moves ahead and check combinations before playing them, namely on the analyse board function. However, as he rightly points out, that function is in such a disgraceful state I wouldn't be surprised if most people just set up a chess board next to their screen.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
I think what Rag means is that a 2400+ player would be expected to think out moves ahead and check combinations before playing them, namely on the analyse board function. However, as he rightly points out, that function is in such a disgraceful state I wouldn't be surprised if most people just set up a chess board next to their screen.

I doubt if that is what he means. I'm sure most strong players export their games to Winboard or ChessbaseLight or 9 or something similiar to work out variations. I do that for all my games but use sideboards for important games (like the ones against our no1Cheat😠) but I don't think that's too convenient for those with many games, though Skeeter once told me she has something like 20 sideboards set up around her house. Setting up a 100 sideboards and moving at IM's pace would have been quite an accomplishment.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
I think what Rag means is that a 2400+ player would be expected to think out moves ahead and check combinations before playing them, namely on the analyse board function. However, as he rightly points out, that function is in such a disgraceful state I wouldn't be surprised if most people just set up a chess board next to their screen.

well, yes - i was hoping he might elaborate. The information available is somewhat limited for me to formulate a clear opinion of whether these people cheated.

To actively cheat... well, writing a programme to pull the 'my games' page, collect the positions, choose a move and play it isn't difficult, and should be fairly easy to detect - but the analyse board page? Ah. it contains nice easily parsed text and (probably) in a recognised standard... but wait, that's in the "my games" page...

So are we suggesting non-use is cheating? i'll remember to click on more things randomly.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I doubt if that is what he means. I'm sure most strong players export their games to Winboard or ChessbaseLight or 9 or something similiar to work out variations. I do that for all my games but use sideboards for important games (like the ones against our no1Cheat😠) but I don't think that's too convenient for those with many games, though Skeeter onc ...[text shortened]... e. Setting up a 100 sideboards and moving at IM's pace would have been quite an accomplishment.

Or maybe he made notes on the games once he had worked out a variation, so that he did not have to go back to the board for a couple of moves. He could then re-set the board for other games. Bearing in mind that everyone agrees he is a very strong player, I doubt he would have needed to take that much time to think against most of his opponents.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
Or maybe he made notes on the games once he had worked out a variation, so that he did not have to go back to the board for a couple of moves. He could then re-set the board for other games. Bearing in mind that everyone agrees he is a very strong player, I doubt he would have needed to take that much time to think against most of his opponents.

Define "very strong player". On the ICCF list, he had a 1932 rating in 1993. That's pretty good, but certainly there are quite a few players on this site who's OTB and other ratings indicate greater strength. I won't keep going over the evidence, but he matched up to a particular engine close to 100% of the time, played a hundred or more games at a time at a pace faster than Grandmasters play OTB and never made an error of any significance. How much proof is required Fred before you accept that the guy was a cheat??

Originally posted by Freddie2004
I think what Rag means is that a 2400+ player would be expected to think out moves ahead and check combinations before playing them, namely on the analyse board function. However, as he rightly points out, that function is in such a disgraceful state I wouldn't be surprised if most people just set up a chess board next to their screen.

Close, but no cigar.

What I meant was that I wouldn't be surprised if 'watching somebody actively cheat' involved seeing that someone got the pgn of their game, and then their next move was an engine move.

For one thing, anybody serious about correspondence chess would probably use something other than the analyse board function, which is crap when investigating complex lines. If this 'something other' was software based, ie: chesspad, then they would use the 'get pgn' function of the site at key moves: ie the important ones when checking for computer usage. In depth analysis using this type of software would bring matchups to a much higher percentage that OTB chess.

If this is one of the tools that is being used for verifying engine use, then it is laughably lame. Until Russ unleashes his new analyse board function, this 'tool' would be worse than useless.

I am still pro - game mods, if they go about their job correctly and the tools they have at their disposal are foolproof. I just hope that they haven't been blinded by the lies thrown about by some people lately. I also hope that they've taken into account that one of the players games from 20 years ago shows that he used to play very similarily to the engines of today, 20 years before they were even invented.

D

Originally posted by no1marauder
played a hundred or more games at a time at a pace faster than Grandmasters play OTB

BS!

In my games against IM, he flew through the database moves, but once he got to tricky positions, he might not move in that particular game for a couple of weeks.

Anybody who has played him, will agree that, again, for some reason, you are choosing to lie to try to discredit someone you don't know. Why did you use hyperbole, like "CRUSHED in 22 moves", back in January to describe a game that IM lost by TO while in a won position?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Close, but no cigar.

What I meant was that I wouldn't be surprised if 'watching somebody actively cheat' involved seeing that someone got the pgn of their game, and then their next move was an engine move.

For one thing, anybody serious about correspondence chess would probably use something other than the analyse board function, which is crap when ...[text shortened]... d to play very similarily to the engines of today, 20 years before they were even invented.

D

Sorry - my post was really a reference to web logs - if they have been used, then it seems reasonable to me that someone (and I may have missed it) would post something to that effect. Now if they showed a player performing a large number of requests at an unachievable rate (by a human clicking), or perhaps a set of pages being requested in a non-reasonable order, then maybe that counts.

What you describe, using the get pgn function - you'd use exactly the same to put a position into an engine, as you would chesspad - so how can the difference be told?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
BS!

In my games against IM, he flew through the database moves, but once he got to tricky positions, he might not move in that particular game for a couple of weeks.

Anybody who has played him, will agree that, again, for some reason, you are choosing to lie to try to discredit someone you don't know. Why did you use hyperbole, like "CRUSHED in 22 moves", back in January to describe a game that IM lost by TO while in a won position?

D

You just don't stop, do you?? The game you rely on from 20 years ago had 12 COUNT'EM 12 non-opening book moves; NO ONE seriously would take that game as any indication of anything. He was one of the most active players on the site and you know it, while playing a few hundred games at GameKnot as well. Are you going to start this again?? Don't you ever get sick of making a complete fool out of yourself?

Originally posted by pineapple42
What you describe, using the get pgn function - you'd use exactly the same to put a position into an engine, as you would chesspad - so how can the difference be told?

Um, you can't. That's my point.

And I have a feeling that this is one of the 'tools' that is being used.

Its an absolute disgrace if it is, and any weight is placed in the fact that someone clicked on 'get pgn', and returned some time later with the same move as one of the engines suggested.

D

Originally posted by pineapple42
Sorry - my post was really a reference to web logs - if they have been used, then it seems reasonable to me that someone (and I may have missed it) would post something to that effect. Now if they showed a player performing a large number of requests at an unachievable rate (by a human clicking), or perhaps a set of pages being requested in a non-reasona ...[text shortened]... ame to put a position into an engine, as you would chesspad - so how can the difference be told?

He's simply guessing.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Um, you can't. That's my point.

And I have a feeling that this is one of the 'tools' that is being used.

Its an absolute disgrace if it is, and any weight is placed in the fact that someone clicked on 'get pgn', and returned some time later with the same move as one of the engines suggested.

D

Cheating is a disgrace, not catching people doing it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You just don't stop, do you?? The game you rely on from 20 years ago had 12 COUNT'EM 12 non-opening book moves; NO ONE seriously would take that game as any indication of anything. He was one of the most active players on the site and you know it, while playing a few hundred games at GameKnot as well. Are you going to start this again?? Don't you ever get sick of making a complete fool out of yourself?

Well, I see you run out of stamina with Ivanhoe in the thread in the clans forum. I really enjoyed the 20odd pages of you two girls wasting whole days bickering, that I fancy some of the action.

Unfortunately, I can only squeeze in about 6 hours, while it appears that you have approximately 140 hours a week for this site. Do you think we can annoy the entirety of the forum readers within 6 hours with a circular argument about a guy that neither of us knows?

Ok, you start.

D

Originally posted by no1marauder
Define "very strong player". On the ICCF list, he had a 1932 rating in 1993. That's pretty good, but certainly there are quite a few players on this site who's OTB and other ratings indicate greater strength. I won't keep going over the evidence, but he matched up to a particular engine close to 100% of the time, played a hundred or more games at a ...[text shortened]... f any significance. How much proof is required Fred before you accept that the guy was a cheat??

That was 13 years ago. As Ravello pointed out in another thread he is still playing competative tournament chess. I wonder what his rating is now? All I am saying is that many of IM's games were against players who he could kick a$$ against without an engine. Your point about him moving at too fast a pace with such a high rating is completely rediculous if you consider that he would have had to think for just a minute or two to come up with a winning combo against most players on this site. Which would have given him far more time to move in his games with players that he actually needed to concentrate properly against.

35368(number of moves he made)/524(number of days Ironman was at this site) = 67 (rounded down) is the number of moves he made a day approx.

Now I am willing to bet that if someone like Tmetlzer, who has the ability, was to analyse the average rating of players that IM played, the rating would be nothing near his (former) rating, probably something closer to 1600-1700. how long do you think it would take for a player of Ironman's rating (if you assume for just a second that he definatly had no assistance) to make winning moves against those rated players...not very long I would imagine. I doubt he would have to think that long to beat players rated even higher than that.

So yours, and the gamemods, evidence lies in the belief that IM used an engine, despite several people on this website having seen IM play. El Bruto and Mythir have played against him and can vouch for his level of play, Pulsatilla has seen him play and Ravello has produced info showing that he does play competative chess at a high level. I wonder if the mods took any of this into consideration? Not from what I've heard. Of course IM matched up close to an engine when he was playing players that he could beat with his hands tied behind his back. Why is it considered so impossible for a player to spend days analysing a position before making a move? You say that he moved at a rate that was quicker than GMs move in OTB play, but when you consider that he had approx. 100 games going at a time and an average of 67 moves a day you see that he quite easily could have moved in his easy games and spent a lot more time, days, considering the best moves and combos. From what I've heard from people who know him, he is a chess nut, and I therefore wouldn't put it past him to spend hours, or days considering a move. If he was doing this he would have had far more time to analyse than GMs and therefore would have had a higher match up to an engine than they did.