Did White Use Computer Engine

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not see this before my reply. It looks like you have picked the best of
my hard fought battles. Good job.

I just picked the 20 games most recently completed before 1st Jan 2012 vs 2000+ rateds which were all found to have 20 or more non-database moves.
This is the criteria I always use. I chose the cut off date because in the last couple of months you've been quite prominent in the forum discussions with regards to engine use.
My choice of games to analyse was transparent & objective. Anyone can go through your game history & see what I've done.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]These matchup rates by Proper Knob covers 3 possibe moves which is likely for anyone to match one of the 3 possible moves.

Really? What evidence have you got to support this claim?[/b]

I have no evidence and neither do you. Now, lets see if my analysis is as
good as a computer chess engines. I'm interested to know how good I really
am. 😏

Originally posted by Zygalski
I just picked the 20 games most recently completed before 1st Jan 2012 vs 2000+ rateds which were all found to have 20 or more non-database moves.
This is the criteria I always use. I chose the cut off date because in the last couple of months you've been quite prominent in the forum discussions with regards to engine use.
My choice of games to analyse was transparent & objective. Anyone can go through your game history & see what I've done.

Okay, sounds fair to me. Go ahead.

P.S. I just wish I could play as well OTB.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have no evidence and neither do you. Now, lets see if my analysis is as
good as a computer chess engines. I'm interested to know how good I really
am. 😏

That's right Ron, there is no evidence regarding your claim that players should always get a top 3 matchup for each move. 🙄🙄

Clueless, unbelievably clueless.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's right Ron, there is no evidence regarding your claim that players should always get a top 3 matchup for each move. 🙄🙄

Clueless, unbelievably clueless.

Glad to see you admit it in writing. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, sounds fair to me. Go ahead.

P.S. I just wish I could play as well OTB.

Thanks for agreeing to allow the analysis to be published.
If you want ply-by-ply analysis rather than just the cumulative game results then please let me know.

This analysis was done using the same methods that RHP Game Mods used to use before they quit their roles.
Many hundreds of benchmark games have been analysed to see just how engine-like the very best OTB GM's & pre-computer era (effectively before 1990) CC World Championship finalists play.
The thresholds as most people who are interested in these things know, are
Top 1 Match: 60%
Top 2 Match: 75%
Top 3 Match: 85%
and this represents the absolute limit of unassisted human engine-like play for non-database moves in reasonably large batches of games. These figures include all the obvious, forcing & only legal moves.
Exceeding all three % points above could be considered overwhelming evidence of engine use.
A further level of engine-like play can also be mentioned & that is what you could call idiotic or blatant engine use.
You have the 20 objectively chosen games with a large sample of non-database moves & you get
Top 1 Match: 65%
Top 2 Match: 80%
Top 3 Match: 90%
All three are well in excess of what appears to be humanly possible without the use of an engine.

Here are the results for the 20 games I analysed:

Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:512 Time:30s Max Depth:20ply
4xAMD Phenom 2.30Ghz 4GB RAM

Game 8821710
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/45 ( 57.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/45 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 41/45 ( 91.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 43/45 ( 95.6% )

{ Black: yrddraig }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/44 ( 31.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/44 ( 56.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 30/44 ( 68.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/44 ( 72.7% )

Game 8895566
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/33 ( 78.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 30/33 ( 90.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )

{ Black: Pawnb4dawn }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/32 ( 71.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/32 ( 96.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/32 ( 100.0% )

Game 8895571
{ White: Pawnb4dawn }
{ Top 1 Match: 24/40 ( 60.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/40 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 29/40 ( 72.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 34/40 ( 85.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 37/40 ( 92.5% )
{ Top 4 Match: 37/40 ( 92.5% )

Game 8914482
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 19/33 ( 57.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/33 ( 75.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 27/33 ( 81.8% )
{ Top 4 Match: 29/33 ( 87.9% )

{ Black: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 19/32 ( 59.4% )
{ Top 2 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )

Game 8895568
{ White: kingshill }
{ Top 1 Match: 27/42 ( 64.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/42 ( 78.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 39/42 ( 92.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 41/42 ( 97.6% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 22/41 ( 53.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/41 ( 75.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 36/41 ( 87.8% )
{ Top 4 Match: 39/41 ( 95.1% )

Game 8914481
{ White: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 22/30 ( 73.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 26/30 ( 86.7% )
{ Top 3 Match: 30/30 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 30/30 ( 100.0% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 17/30 ( 56.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 24/30 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 26/30 ( 86.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 28/30 ( 93.3% )

Game 8895565
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/33 ( 78.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )

{ Black: kingshill }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/34 ( 67.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/34 ( 100.0% )

Game 8845055
{ White: cohonas }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/37 ( 75.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/37 ( 89.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 36/37 ( 97.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 36/37 ( 97.3% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/36 ( 72.2% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/36 ( 86.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/36 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/36 ( 94.4% )

Game 8845060
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 19/25 ( 76.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 22/25 ( 88.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 24/25 ( 96.0% )

{ Black: cohonas }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/26 ( 88.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 24/26 ( 92.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/26 ( 96.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 26/26 ( 100.0% )

Game 8821820
{ White: PA82 }
{ Top 1 Match: 10/23 ( 43.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 17/23 ( 73.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 19/23 ( 82.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 20/23 ( 87.0% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 18/23 ( 78.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 21/23 ( 91.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 21/23 ( 91.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 22/23 ( 95.7% )

Game 8821766
{ White: ItsYouThatIAdore }
{ Top 1 Match: 17/39 ( 43.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 23/39 ( 59.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 26/39 ( 66.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/39 ( 84.6% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/40 ( 62.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/40 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 39/40 ( 97.5% )

Game 8775723
{ White: rrlack3066 }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/43 ( 58.1% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/43 ( 81.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 40/43 ( 93.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 42/43 ( 97.7% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/44 ( 63.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 39/44 ( 88.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 41/44 ( 93.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 43/44 ( 97.7% )

Game 8775725
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/32 ( 96.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/32 ( 100.0% )

{ Black: rrlack3066 }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/31 ( 67.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 26/31 ( 83.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 28/31 ( 90.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 29/31 ( 93.5% )

Game 8804595
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/33 ( 75.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 29/33 ( 87.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/33 ( 93.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 31/33 ( 93.9% )

{ Black: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/33 ( 69.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )

Game 8804592
{ White: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/34 ( 61.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 29/34 ( 85.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/34 ( 94.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/35 ( 65.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/35 ( 88.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/35 ( 91.4% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/35 ( 97.1% )

Game 8650789
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 4 Match: 28/32 ( 87.5% )

{ Black: aetheon }
{ Top 1 Match: 16/31 ( 51.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 22/31 ( 71.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 23/31 ( 74.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 23/31 ( 74.2% )

Game 8695484
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 32/47 ( 68.1% )
{ Top 2 Match: 40/47 ( 85.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/47 ( 93.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 46/47 ( 97.9% )

{ Black: Kings and Pawns }
{ Top 1 Match: 35/47 ( 74.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 42/47 ( 89.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/47 ( 93.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 46/47 ( 97.9% )

Game 8695491
{ White: Kings and Pawns }
{ Top 1 Match: 35/48 ( 72.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 42/48 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 45/48 ( 93.8% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/48 ( 58.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/48 ( 79.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )

Game 8653987
{ White: vkim }
{ Top 1 Match: 39/64 ( 60.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 55/64 ( 85.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 58/64 ( 90.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 61/64 ( 95.3% )

{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 52/64 ( 81.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 60/64 ( 93.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 64/64 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 64/64 ( 100.0% )

Game 8653988
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 30/53 ( 56.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/53 ( 71.7% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/53 ( 83.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 45/53 ( 84.9% )

{ Black: vkim }
{ Top 1 Match: 42/54 ( 77.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 52/54 ( 96.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 53/54 ( 98.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 54/54 ( 100.0% )

Batch Summary

RJHinds (Games: 20)
Top 1 Match: 510/767 ( 66.5% )
Top 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )

Originally posted by watchyourbackrank
jesus christ.
either there's something wrong with the analysis method
or else (almost) everyone is playing like chess programs

Pa82 is a real player, I am not surprised his numbers reflect that. Many of our "admired" top players have got a houdini chip in their noggins it seems....

thanks for this Zygalski, removes all doubt.

Originally posted by watchyourbackrank
jesus christ.
either there's something wrong with the analysis method
or else (almost) everyone is playing like chess programs

Certainly there is enough evidence to put people under suspicion. Heck simply being on the front page is reason enough to put people under suspicion. What would be interesting is to see the figures for the entire front page. I'm all for ID cards.. if you''ve nothing to hide then what's the problem ?

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Certainly there is enough evidence to put people under suspicion. Heck simply being on the front page is reason enough to put people under suspicion. What would be interesting is to see the figures for the entire front page. I'm all for ID cards.. if you''ve nothing to hide then what's the problem ?

What do you understand with ID card?

Originally posted by Zygalski
Thanks for agreeing to allow the analysis to be published.
If you want ply-by-ply analysis rather than just the cumulative game results then please let me know.

This analysis was done using the same methods that RHP Game Mods used to use before they quit their roles.
Many hundreds of benchmark games have been analysed to see just how engine-like the ve ...[text shortened]... p 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )

Of the Top 1 Match, I do not see any match making a grade of A over 90%.
The best grade I see is B+ by cohanas with 88.5% and I was able to get a
B- with 81.3. However, the total of 66.5% is a D grade in my book. I would
not accuse someone of cheating on the SAT with those grades.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of the Top 1 Match, I do not see any match making a grade of A over 90%.
The best grade I see is B+ by cohanas with 88.5% and I was able to get a
B- with 81.3. However, the total of 66.5% is a D grade in my book. I would
not accuse someone of cheating on the SAT with those grades.

Its not about how good the moves are its about how much like an engine they are. There are many human moves which are just as good or better than the box moves that fall outside the top matchup more often than 35% of the time and then when you combine this with errors that the human is prone to make over a 20 game stretch the moves should not correlate at least 40% of the time. This is for just the top move in reply to your comment about the top move.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Its not about how good the moves are its about how much like an engine they are. There are many human moves which are just as good or better than the box moves that fall outside the top matchup more often than 35% of the time and then when you combine this with errors that the human is prone to make over a 20 game stretch the moves should not correlate at ...[text shortened]... east 40% of the time. This is for just the top move in reply to your comment about the top move.

Oh, I see, you like to see errors and blunders in the games. I am sure I made
some, since I did not win or draw all those games.