17 Jul 08
Originally posted by exigentskyThey are always "relevant" i.e. having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue. What could be more relevant as regards whether someone is using an engine to help him choose his moves then the number of times he and the engine pick the same moves?
You wrote:
Originally posted by eldragonfly
[b] believe your methodology perhaps might be severely flawed. Some moves are forced, some moves are common variations of well known openings. If you would post 1 game and give us the move by move breakdown, i think that would be helpful.
This seems like a reasonable argument against relying "c ...[text shortened]... tatistics should be used with care by someone qualified to understand when they're relevant.[/b]
The more data, the better. But a couple of hundred (or less) moves in representative games often suffice as "overwhelming evidence" of engine use.
17 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by eldragonflyOK, so then you are for "completely relying on engine statistics?" I'm not sure I know where you stand. You would consider a game with a high matchup rate cheating regardless of the nature of the positions or extent of opening theory used?
Well your interpretation is just plain wrong then. i was questioning the poorly described ideas of :
1) determining when an opening "goes out of book"
and
2) were they looking at forced moves or not.
That is all.
BTW: no1marauder, I don't think they are always relevant in determining cheating. Would you factor in an obvious perpetual or the matchup for actually playing out a mate with R+K vs K? Someone playing out the mate would likely have higher matchup rates than if one's opponent resigns but I don't see it showing much more than he knows the algorithm as well as any 1000 player. This is not to say that engine statistics are not useful in catching cheaters. It's just that proper methodology must be used and the statistics should be interpreted by someone qualified to do so.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by wormwoodHe probably got his feelings hurt when his opponent didn't resign. OTOH, some IMs may be rusty at such elementary technique (as hard as it is to imagine that!).
ha! 🙂
probably a principled but a couple of moves longer approach makes more sense than that fancy rook shuffle at the end though. 🙂 -btw, I just witnessed an IM on ICC moving pieces for a timeout win, instead of mating with the rook!?! and he did have the time, easy. crazy stuff.
17 Jul 08
An interesting test case would be Jonathan Penrose. A very strong player over the board, he has been one of the world's top correspondence players for many decades, both pre and post computer era. A comparison of his computer match up rates in different forms of chess and different eras could provide a useful benchmark.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyred herring, my position on cheats is well known here, they should be removed by whatever means available and whatever means possible. And describe what you mean by "relying on engine statistics" and "high match up" rates and other twaddle, otherwise your questions are meaningless.
OK, so then you are for "completely relying on engine statistics?" I'm not sure I know where you stand. You would consider a game with a high matchup rate cheating regardless of the nature of the positions or extent of opening theory used?
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by exigentskyred herring=logical fallacy. Your strange examples are silly and irrelevant.
BTW: no1marauder, I don't think they are always relevant in determining cheating. Would you factor in an obvious perpetual or the matchup for actually playing out a mate with R+K vs K? Someone playing out the mate would likely have higher matchup rates than if one's opponent resigns but I don't see it showing much more than he knows the algorithm as well ...[text shortened]... odology must be used and the statistics should be interpreted by someone qualified to do so.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyPlease read the definition of "relevant".
OK, so then you are for "completely relying on engine statistics?" I'm not sure I know where you stand. You would consider a game with a high matchup rate cheating regardless of the nature of the positions or extent of opening theory used?
BTW: no1marauder, I don't think they are always relevant in determining cheating. Would you factor in an obvious logy must be used and the statistics should be interpreted by someone qualified to do so.
If you have anything to say in response to my previous post, say it. No one relies on just one game so your examples are besides the point. How many % of games of players here do you think end in "obvious perpetual" (would you ignore the rest of the game?) or someone playing out a mate with R+K v. K? Why don't you be realistic for a change?
17 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by eldragonflyI didn't ask for your opinion on the appropriate punishment for cheaters. Please read my posts more carefully and then give me a straight answer. Don't sprinkle your posts with irrelevant insults in place of arguments. It does not contribute to the discussion and only demonstrates that you position is too flimsy to be put up for rational debate or you lack the confidence and intelligence to defend it. I've addressed your typical style in detail in other threads and I will not continue if you choose to demean yourself this way.
red herring, my position on cheats is well known here, they should be removed by whatever means available and whatever means possible. And describe what you mean by "relying on engine statistics" and "high match up" rate and other twaddle, otherwise your questions are meaningless.
no1marauder, there is no need to be so antagonistic. I gave you specific examples and general cases where engine matchup rates have little value in determining cheating. Hence, in these instances, they are irrelevant to the problem of cheating. For example, I would discount the part of a game where there is a simple mate with R+K vs K from the overall matchup rates (to avoid artificial inflation). Of course, in a sufficiently large sample perhaps such precautions are not entirely necessary. However, they are still a good idea.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by exigentskyad hominem=logical fallacy. You are asking silly, pointless and nonsensical questions, i suggest you take no1marauders advice.
I didn't ask for your opinion on the appropriate punishment for cheaters. Please read my posts more carefully and then give me a straight answer. Don't sprinkle your posts with irrelevant insults in place of arguments...
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by exigentsky100% pure distortion, you gave but one silly and easily discarded example.
no1marauder, I gave you specific examples and general cases where engine matchup rates have little value in determining cheating. Thus, in these instances, they are irrelevant to the problem we're trying to solve.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyIt's not enough to cycle randomly from a list of fallacies. These aren't M&Ms. You need to explain how it applies and why. Moreover, just denouncing something doesn't give you higher ground. It shows that you're uncertain how to answer and need to cower behind a veil of insults. My questions were pertinent to understanding your thus far, mysterious position.
ad hominem=logical fallacy. You are asking silly, pointless and nonsensical questions, i suggest you take no1marauders advice.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyEldragonfly,
What specious drivel and worthless speculation, i almost feel sorry for you..
I'm really at a loss for words with you. You troll around every thread with your head so far up no1's posterior that all your posts sound a bit muffled. I have no problem with no1's posts because they actually have content, and contain pertinent points and counterpoints. His posts further a discussion, and make some sense. Yours are just personal attacks that fan the flames, and do nothing to discuss the topic at hand. It should be obvious that some of my post was meant to be silly. On the other hand, the math is correct (I think), and it could be a useful way to determine whether a game is really worth looking at. You didn't make one useful comment as to why my post is "specious drivel and worthless speculation". Math is not speculation you ignoramus, and if there's anyone feeling sorry for anyone, it's me for you chief.
P.S. - If anything, since no1's completely passed up my post, chances are it means he has nothing horrible to say about it, at least not yet. So by your doppelganging standards, you shouldn't comment on it either.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by exigentskySuch myopic and shallow twaddle, i must say i am impressed. Actually it is enough if one has acquired some realworld critical thinking skills, obviously in your case that is far from true. You trying to debunk chess engine matchup rates with an unlikely and arbitrary stalemate is rather laughable.
It's not enough to cycle randomly from a list of fallacies. These aren't M&Ms. You need to explain how it applies and why.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyEngine matchup statistics are useful but don't exist in a vacuum. What specific statements do you consider distortion (quote and explain)? What exactly is your position and how was it misrepresented or misunderstood? What is the example you're referring to? Why is it silly? If it's so easily discarded, please precisely and logically explain why and how. I have a feeling we're back on the merry-go-round and I'm talking to myself.
100% pure distortion, you gave but one silly and easily discarded example.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by !~TONY~!ad hominem=logical fallacy. and you are pretending that my posts are content free, such a carefree and supremely idiotic assumption, is quite absurd. Surely you can do better than !Tony my boy.
Eldragonfly,
I'm really at a loss for words with you. You troll around every thread with your head so far up no1's posterior that all your posts sound a bit muffled. I have no problem with no1's posts because they actually have content, and contain pertinent points and counterpoints.