03 Jan 09
Originally posted by cashthetrashMore bluster.
As I have said before...Garbage in garbage out. Tell me again where you got this degree in chess cheat game analysis. Are you a professional or just an amateur? How much do you get paid and would you willing to take your evidence in front of a court and swear before an independent Judge that there is no possibility of you to have made an error in the ev ...[text shortened]... your facts that the results are 100% flawless and just as strong as the results of DNA testing?
There is no possibility that I made any error in my analysis - it's not rocket science to analyze a game using Fritz 10. Duecer has the actual analysis and it can be easily repeated by anyone so interested. I have no doubt that this evidence proves he's a cheat.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonIf the position being searched is not in the database what then do you suppose the first choice represents?
Oh and don't forget his "evidence" on the top player here was an OVERWHELMING 3rd move matchup. Wish I could find that thread but I think all of those have been deleted.
They can say all they want to about "database" moves are thrown out.
I am still asking around to some programmers but I am pretty sure 1st choice is still searching through database moves, after that the engine looks for a better move.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonHow are those numbers more damning when they are a good deal lower than nmdavidb's?
And yours.
Top 1 Match: 343/568 - 60,4% ( 56,1% )
Top 2 Match: 437/568 - 76,9% ( 73,4% )
Top 3 Match: 480/568 - 84,5% ( 81,8% )
I don't know alot about statistics but boy do those look alot more damning than his.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by KeplerLike I said I am still asking around on that one. But I have been told that 1st choice is getting a move from the database.
If the position being searched is not in the database what then do you suppose the first choice represents?
It makes sense to me. The purpose of the engine is to find a better move than one that was originally played correct?
Otherwise all an engine is is just a big database.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonTop 3 Match = Matching one of the top 3 choices of Fritz.
Because his on 3rd choice was 2/124.
I am just going with what has been told to me.
And how do you figure that 4% is higher than 84.5%?
no1's numbers were the numbers for each of the choices separately. If "Top 3 Match" would mean "third choice" as you seem to imply, how do you figure he managed to get an overall match for the three top choices of way over 100%? Did he get multiple choices for one move?
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonThe percentages make no sense. no1marauder cannot have matched to more than 100% of an engine's choices. If 84.5% of his moves match engine third choices then there is only 15.5% left for first and second choices. I suspect the percentages are actually cumulative. If that is so, they can be converted to the same format as no1marauder's figures for nmdavidb and come out as follows:
Because his on 3rd choice was 2/124.
I am just going with what has been told to me.
And how do you figure that 4% is higher than 84.5%?
1st choice: 60.4%
2nd choice: 16.%
3rd choice: 7.6%
Alternatively, no1's figures for nmdavidb translated into your format:
1st choice: 68.84%
2nd choice: 84.78%
3rd choice: 89.62%
Make of that what you will.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderUhh yes he did, those were from your 2007 championship games.
I guess you don't know a lot about statistics. nmdavidb's match ups are 8-12% higher for Fritz's top two choices and 5-8% higher for Fritz's top three choices then "mine" supposedly were.
Of course the cheat that provided those numbers didn't give the games that were supposedly analyzed or provide the analysis itself as I did (I still don't k ...[text shortened]... : 95/138 - 68.84%
Top 2 Match: 117/138 - 84.78%
Top 3 Match: 124/138 - 89.86%
And see now you have just played with those numbers again.
I mean Einstein's theory was regarded as fact for many years until Hawkins came out with new improvements to it.
So apparently you have just shown us that anything or anyone can match up and it can be presented in different ways to make it more damning to the person in question.
If the bible was correct why have they had to change it?
Thank you so much for proving to everyone that this system is not correct.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonNo, the purpose of the engine is not to find a better move than that originally played. The purpose of an engine is to find the best move in a given position according to its evaluation function.
Like I said I am still asking around on that one. But I have been told that 1st choice is getting a move from the database.
It makes sense to me. The purpose of the engine is to find a better move than one that was originally played correct?
Otherwise all an engine is is just a big database.
When engines are using database moves they do not calculate, they play the given move and therefore there is no first, second or nth choice to consider. When the engine is calculating it ranks moves according to the score produced by its evaluation function. The first choice is the move that gets the highest score. Even if the engine has no access to a database it will produce a first choice move.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonThat's rather remarkable since I didn't play in the 2007 Championship.
Uhh yes he did, those were from your 2007 championship games.
And see now you have just played with those numbers again.
I mean Einstein's theory was regarded as fact for many years until Hawkins came out with new improvements to it.
So apparently you have just shown us that anything or anyone can match up and it can be presented in different ways ...[text shortened]... had to change it?
Thank you so much for proving to everyone that this system is not correct.
I didn't change the numbers one iota; they are the same numbers presented in the format that the cheat presented "mine" in as Noodles' post explained.
03 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerWhere i come from 84 + 20 + 6 = 110 Not 124
The percentages make no sense. no1marauder cannot have matched to more than 100% of an engine's choices. If 84.5% of his moves match engine third choices then there is only 15.5% left for first and second choices. I suspect the percentages are actually cumulative. If that is so, they can be converted to the same format as no1marauder's figures for nmdavidb a
1st choice: 68.84%
2nd choice: 84.78%
3rd choice: 89.62%
Make of that what you will.
14 moves were left out because it would have made the %'s lower by a ton and probably showed forced moves in the thinking process.
You can play with numbers and do anything you want to with them.
That has just been shown.
Edit: Not my format. I have no clue how to do this stuff. But everyone i have talked to on this is VERY skeptical of how this works. I know i don't buy it.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by Carterson110? 124? Where did those come from? If they are intended as percentages you need to get some help with your mathematics. I know nothing of how many moves were used or left out, the figures I was referring to were percentages. Again, if you do not understand the difference you need to seek help in matters mathematical before arguing numbers with numerate people.
Where i come from 84 + 20 + 6 = 110 Not 124
14 moves were left out because it would have made the %'s lower by a ton and probably showed forced moves in the thinking process.
You can play with numbers and do anything you want to with them.
That has just been shown.
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by KeplerIf you haven't noticed all he posts is the second part.
110? 124? Where did those come from? If they are intended as percentages you need to get some help with your mathematics. I know nothing of how many moves were used or left out, the figures I was referring to were percentages. Again, if you do not understand the difference you need to seek help in matters mathematical before arguing numbers with numerate people.
Here is the original
Overall totals:
Fritz10: 1) 84/124 67.74% (67.74
Fritz10: 2) 20/124 16.13% (83.87
Fritz10: 3) 6/124 4.84% (88.71
03 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by CartersonYes those are the numbers from the first 7 games I sent to the Game Mods; I sent an 8th that finished shortly thereafter. Since you don't understand the numbers given, I will explain them:
If you haven't noticed all he posts is the second part.
Here is the original
Overall totals:
Fritz10: 1) 84/124 67.74% (67.74
Fritz10: 2) 20/124 16.13% (83.87
Fritz10: 3) 6/124 4.84% (88.71
124 is the total number of non-database moves made by nmdavidb in the 7 games.
84 is the number of these moves which matched Fritz's first choice for a suggested move
20 is the number of these moves which matched Fritz's second choice for a suggested move
6 is the number of these moves which matched Fritz's third choice for a suggested move
Those numbers were then divided by the total moves (124) to get a percentage which is presented next. The numbers in parentheses is a cumulative total of the percentages.
The 8th game against mulgabill had 14 non-database moves 11 of which were Fritz's first choice, 2 were second choices and 1 was a third choice. I added these numbers to the results given above and recomputed the percentages accordingly.