Do CC players play like engines?

Originally posted by Kepler
As I recall, there were about 50 matches out of about 54 or 55 non-book moves. I removed another 5 as forced or obviously best. Altogether there were over 70 moves, 20 of which were book.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Let me know where my math is wrong, but

55 total evaluated moves, ~91% match means 5 moves were Not Engine

remove 5 forced moves (engine matches)

wouldn't you still have 5 Non engine moves out of 50? ( 90% )

If you can give the numbers I'd like to see how this percentage could have gone from near 90 to near 80%

Later folks!

Originally posted by Kepler
I suggested that applying the system no1marauder was told to use to gather evidence against suspecte3d cheats to a correspondence chess master who could not have used an engine might provide evidence for or against such players playing like engines. Someone suggested I should do it and post the results so here they are. I have not put this in the original thr ...[text shortened]... y suspect he was making use of his own Hitech system.

So, make of that what you will.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Good work.

A couple of thoughts...
the top 12 engine choices will really affect the number of lines searched for each choice. I'd recommend 3-5, temporarily increasing that if you want further data.

If anybody has Hitech, it'd be very interesting to see his matchup percentage with that engine.

D

I was giving some thought to this system of analysis recently when contemplating the future of the game mods (which in my opinion isn't coming back, sadly, but that's a different topic), and I've come to decide that this is a good system, but some extra mathy stuff might be useful to decide how useful the game is to look at. For instance, a game that's all theory, then a bunch of forced moves, then drawn is near useless, but will make both players look like cheats. Of course, you could look at it and tell, but it would be interesting to try to automate this process as much as possible. An interesting idea is to devise some kind of dimensionless quantity (forgive me, I've been too wrapped up in Fluid Mechanics, so I think in terms of dimensionless numbers all the time), possibly called the Rotella # (after the person who invented it of course), that's a measure of how many moves in a game required deep thought (out of the total N moves that aren't theoretical), or posed a problem to a player. The higher the Rotella # (Ro from now on) the more likely a high match up rate means something. This wouldn't be hard to implement. For instance,

It wouldn't be too hard to take the top n move choices of an engine on a turn and see how much of a difference between the moves there are. You could set some threshold, let's just say .2 pawns, by which you count the m number of moves in this group that are within .2 pawns of the first choice. So each turn you'd have some fraction m/n that gives you a measure of how difficult it is to select the computers first choice. Then:

Ro = [sum (m/n) ]/ N

Thus a Ro of 1 would mean every turn was very difficult to select the computers first choice of moves, and a very small Ro would mean that the game means almost nothing. That said, Ro would depend heavily on n and the pawn fraction, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

P.S. - Now that I think about it, we might have had this when I was a game mod, and I just didn't know what it was. Maybe not. I'll wait for someone to tell me. 😀

Originally posted by Kepler
I suggested that applying the system no1marauder was told to use to gather evidence against suspecte3d cheats to a correspondence chess master who could not have used an engine might provide evidence for or against such players playing like engines. Someone suggested I should do it and post the results so here they are. I have not put this in the original thr ...[text shortened]... y suspect he was making use of his own Hitech system.

So, make of that what you will.

For what it's worth: I finally achieved a 100% match-up with an engine in Game 5222927!

Originally posted by no1marauder
And there are players on this site playing dozens (or more) of games here, more on other sites and they have higher match up rates than Berliner. What does that tell you has to the probability that they are using engine assistance?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Too simplistic, dull, arbitrary, basically worthless, not insightful in the least, etc.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
For what it's worth: I finally achieved a 100% match-up with an engine in Game 5222927!

Originally posted by exigentsky
Your first post in this thread seemed logical and even insightful. I've had the same argument against relying completely on engine statistics. A forcing position is likely to have a higher matchup rate than a quiet one with many good choices and one should also account for opening theory. I was impressed.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
For what it's worth: I finally achieved a 100% match-up with an engine in Game 5222927!

Originally posted by eldragonfly
How meaningful, i meant every word. But seriously between the poster in question and the rest of the now defunct/disbanded game mod team minus Mr. Tebb, it's not a stretch to realize how nothing got accomplished. and exigentsky i wasn't making an argument against "relying on engine statistics" no i was questioning the apparently rather arbitrary and haph ...[text shortened]... y, leading to possible misuses and misinterpretations of simple numbers. Rhymes with orange.

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
For instance, a game that's all theory, then a bunch of forced moves, then drawn is near useless, but will make both players look like cheats.

Originally posted by exigentsky
This seems like a reasonable argument against relying "completely on engine statistics." That's all I claimed.