17 Jul 08
Originally posted by wormwoodad hominem=logical fallacy.
he's like a kid who just found a list of logical fallacies in the web, went to bash some half-wit creationists with it, and now thinks he can actually debate. but the sad truth is that simply spilling jargon is a poor substitute for content. it's the pretentious version of sticking fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalala.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by Korchi willing to bet that Analyser is simply a piece of over-hyped "gee whiz" rubbish, given it's proponents.
Actually game mods have used program (so called Analyser) which allows to analyse large amount of games without too much exertion. With that Analyser analysing of 30 games would take maximum 1-2 days.
17 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhat a pile of specious self-absorbed chickenscratch. i am willing to bet that the definition for what a forced move is varies wildly, so to automatically exclude and/or ignore them seems silly, even if overall percentages drop by very little as you have stated. 😉
Me too. Though we agreed on many points, now he took a run at me over something as simple as checking for forced moves.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Keplerdon't tell !Tony that, these are precisely the type of games that his silly formula would seek to exclude from engine matchup rate analysis, because they're "theoretical" and all that. 😠
Another thing to consider is that if there were a long enough sequence of forced moves to have a significant effect on the figures that might in itself be evidence of engine use. Humans don't generally find move sequences that are that long, and those that do are generally much stronger than the top players on this site.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by JieOriginally it was not really about cheats. I was trying to test a suggestion that correspondence chess players play more like engines due to the amount of calculation they could potentially do. Since then the cheat paranoia has crept in.
Is this yet another thread that characterises the obsession with cheats? Acute cheat psychosis may be a symptom of Schizophrenia characterised by :-
- Distorted Perceptions of Reality
- Hallucinations and Illusions
- Delusions
Get this checked out.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JieHardly a delusional psychosis, otherwise chess.com and ICC wouldn't have layers of software in place to detect engine cheats. On the whole i would have to say that your imbecilic statement is rather foolish and counter-productive.
Is this yet another thread that characterises the obsession with cheats? Acute cheat psychosis may be a symptom of Schizophrenia characterised by :-
- Distorted Perceptions of Reality
- Hallucinations and Illusions
- Delusions
Get this checked out.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyProfessional help is available before you start frothing at the mouth. Disordered thinking and emotional expressiveness are the last stages before you slip down the road.
Hardly a delusional psychosis, otherwise chess.com and ICC wouldn't have layers of software in place to detect engine cheats. On the whole i would have to say that your embicilic statement is rather foolish and counter-productive.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by Jieahhhh... i was waiting for this.... the holy grail of the magic manchild insults... the internet meds game. 🙁
Professional help is available before you start frothing at the mouth. Disordered thinking and emotional expressiveness are the last stages before you slip down the road.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by KeplerEngines play more like engines than CC players. I've played OTB games where I matched about 60%, others where I matched 30. If a CC player were to match an engine most all of the time consistently I'd be a bit worried about them.
Originally it was not really about cheats. I was trying to test a suggestion that correspondence chess players play more like engines due to the amount of calculation they could potentially do. Since then the cheat paranoia has crept in.
Engines evaluate millions of positions, people don't.
P-
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyThis parameter applies solely to moves after theory ends. The game mods have done this since the beginning, as should everyone that looks at a game. The Analyzer Gatecrasher made does this automatically. You'd catch no one if you asked what an engine thought of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 0-0 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nc6 14. Nb3 a5 15. Be3 a4 16. Nbd2. Junior 9 doesn't even pick half of these moves as it's first choice, while a human could look up every single one of these. In fact, theory goes on much farther in this line.
Uhhhh, his measure, as false and idiotic as it is, is meant to be an excuse to exclude certain openings from engine match up rates. Surely even you must realize how stoopid this is. 🙄
Anyway, I'm done with your juvenile games, this is officially my last post responding to this half wit. Hopefully everyone in this thread will do the same, and he'll leave and try to get himself off somewhere else.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI know. I wasn't the one making the suggestion. I don't think Berliner plays like an engine even though he matches more than 80%. As far as I can see the top flight CC players still don't play like engines even though they use engines to aid their analysis. Players at our level using and engine are a completely different matter.
Engines play more like engines than CC players. I've played OTB games where I matched about 60%, others where I matched 30. If a CC player were to match an engine most all of the time consistently I'd be a bit worried about them.
Engines evaluate millions of positions, people don't.
P-