Only Chess
06 Mar 08
31 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by gezzaBy Cludi's own admission, his moves in the finals of the 2007 Championship are 85%+ match ups to Fritz's first two choices (70% to first choice). Gate has already said a normal pattern for a strong player is at least 10-15% lower. And those are Cludi's numbers; Dave Tebb said his analyses give even higher match ups.
Ok. Wikipedia gives "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim"
You said[b]
P1: Very high matchups are strong evidence.
P2: Cludi has very high matchups in a fairly large sample
Therefore, .........................................
Befor st statistics. Give me something more, or your "facts" are no more than idle pub chatter.[/b]
How high do you want before you consider the match ups as strong evidence? 105%?
EDIT: Gatecrasher: For matching just the top move, over many games, you are looking at a control stat of 50%-60% depending on the nature of the games. The most blatant offender we've ever had (Jean Hebert, the imposter, remember him?) managed over 75% on first choice, over many games, some 20% above the control set!
EDIT2: David Tebb: Also bear in mind that these are cludi's own statistics, from an analysis of his games that he ran. My analysis produced much higher statistics.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by gezzaYou say "idle pub chatter", eh? i should have known... you cannot refute no1marauders concise and palpable input and succinct observations out of hand..
You forgot the [/sarcasm] when accusing "diabolical ones" of engine use. No1 will start to think someone actually agrees with him.
What are you talking about? i mean everyword i say my man. 😞
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by KorchCantinflas´ghost leave that body immediately !
I agree that if site admins haven't banned anybody yet is not evidence of someone's innocence.
BUT
Person is entitled to a presumption of innocence if the evidence is not enough for making entitled persons to find him guilty. And you are not entitled to find guilty someone. So its not for you to decide if someone is guilty or not.
31 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by DawgHausCall.
Adjective
dispassionate
1. not showing, and not affected by emotion, bias, or prejudice
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispassionate
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dispassionately
1. free from or unaffected by passion;
No1 is passionate about this, I would give you that. But to claim he is biased is certainly wrong. He'd expose his mother if she used an engine on this site, let alone internet 'friends'.
31 Mar 08
I make no claim of bias. I make the claim of showing passion, of showing emotion. While fully appropriate in many circumstances, I believe it to be inappropriate during the judgment phase of evaluating claims.
I think I've made my personal position clear enough. I won't be responding to further discussion, even if my position is being mischaracterized.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderLooks like "more statistics" to me.
By Cludi's own admission, his moves in the finals of the 2007 Championship are 85%+ match ups to Fritz's first two choices (70% to first choice). Gate has already said a normal pattern for a strong player is at least 10-15% lower. And those are Cludi's numbers; Dave Tebb said his analyses give even higher match ups.
How high do you want ...[text shortened]... m an analysis of his games that he ran. [b]My analysis produced much higher statistics.[/b]
Have a nice life.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by eldragonfly"Your man" I am not.
You say "idle pub chatter", eh? i should have known... you cannot refute no1marauders concise and palpable input and succinct observations out of hand..
What are you talking about? i mean everyword i say my man. 😞
If you mean every word you say, then perhaps you would care to explain this:
" [...] or are most probably using engines in some fashion."
I know you wrote it, and did not say it. All the same, to my limited comprehension of the English language, you appear to be accusing of engine use, all those who prefer to wait for a verdict before accusing.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by gezzageeza: all those who prefer to wait for a verdict before accusing.
"Your man" I am not.
If you mean every word you say, then perhaps you would care to explain this:
" [...] or are most probably using engines in some fashion."
I know you wrote it, and did not say it. All the same, to my limited comprehension of the English language, you appear to be accusing of engine use, all those who prefer to wait for a verdict before accusing.
Hilarious. How do we get to a verdict if no one is ever charged?
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by gezzaYou are overgeneralizing and misinterpreting my harmless statements. some call it distortion, some call it misinformation. How could i possibly know if you cheat and/or use a top-notch chess engine, but honestly your statements make little sense. Yes there are idiots here that use chess engines, even highly visible and highly flamboyant players, that you choose to flaunt this idea is a bit absurd.
"Your man" I am not.
If you mean every word you say, then perhaps you would care to explain this:
" [...] or are most probably using engines in some fashion."
I know you wrote it, and did not say it. All the same, to my limited comprehension of the English language, you appear to be accusing of engine use, all those who prefer to wait for a verdict before accusing.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderHow do you know what the game mods agree on or disagree on?
You seem to think that the percentage of match ups to Fritz is unimportant. The Game Mods don't agree.
It has been said many times (by game mods) that the only reason a player is banned is because he plays like an engine. Match up in a selected sample of games proves nothing. I am sure if we looked through enough of my games and ditto with yours we will find one with virtually a 100% match up.
Having found it lets take it in isolation and you can then claim "DF has a 100% match up in game ???? therefore he must be using an engine, ban him!" The fact that my next game has a 20% match making my overall match up rate now a more respectable 60% has no relevance because, presumably, I played inferior moves deliberately because that game was unimportant. While you are at it why don't you go through all my games and select the 20 games with the highest match up and ignore all the others - that must prove something!
I've said it earlier in this thread and I will repeat it, the only conclusive proof is when a player makes engine moves and believe me, if he is an engine, he will make such moves and the higher the match up the more likely those moves will become. So a high match up gives a reason for suspicion and increases the possibility that conclusive proof in the form of an engine move will be found but by itself in isolation it proves very little.