Only Chess
05 Feb 11
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by moon1969I don't know if they could or not. An occasional blunder check might not be sufficient to raise your rating that much.
I just looked at that thread, and I noticed Squelchbelch said:
"The already strong player who only uses Fritz to check the odd line or validity of a few moves in a few games won't really be caught by any detection method."
In a way an answer to my question in my previous post.
Seems like on RHP, one could increase their rating, for example, from 1850 (no engine use) to 2050 (mild engine use) without being detected?
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the reply. I would like to think that occasional blunder check isn't sufficient to raise a RHP rating much at medium to stronger play. That engine blunder checking would not be too much benefit. Reduce the number of occasional blundered games and maybe only increasing RHP rating 50 points or so. It has bothered me a little to think that mild engine use is effective and goes undetected and here to stay in RHP (and other sites). If so, I would just accept it I guess, and maybe make time for OTB play, and just realize in RHP that I may be playing against engine-assist sometimes.
An occasional blunder check might not be sufficient to raise your rating that much.
I have been playing at about RHP 1850, and wondering in the abstract what my rating would be with checking each move with an engine to avoid a blunder and also occasionally relying on the engine for an awesome unseen move. Keep the engine-use mild enough to go undetected.
I just don't know enough about engines or their detection.
Probably think about it too much at times. Just forget about it and play. And let the mods do their job the best they can.
I am considering buying an engine (e.g., Fritz 12) just for practice, training, after-game analysis, etc., outside of RHP.
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by aquatabbyYour profile is hilarious by the way. I like that.
It would be very difficult to detect, but not necessarily impossible. I think you'd have to check for 'bad' moves, rather than top 3 match-ups, which will by definition be 'good' moves. It would be interesting to analyse a few games between good humans and see how many moves were bad by engine standards.
Also, you have to consider the level of oppositio ...[text shortened]... ally would have to be very lucky with their non-assisted moves to stand any chance at all.
I was thinking in the hypothetical that if I used an engine, I would first select my move without the engine and then check my selected move with the engine to make sure it is not a blunder, and then go with my selected move no matter how my move ranks in the engine (with the rare exception of relying on the engine for an incredible move).
My unfounded gut feel is that it would be some benefit (+100 points?) to my RHP rating and that detection only by a dang good statistician (if even feasible to detect)?
I am RHP 1900 now. Maybe increase to 2000?
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by moon1969I'd say that line of thinking is a bit dangerous.
Your profile is hilarious by the way. I like that.
I was thinking in the hypothetical that if I used an engine, I would first select my move without the engine and then check my selected move with the engine to make sure it is not a blunder, and then go with my selected move no matter how my move ranks in the engine (with the rare exception of relying o ...[text shortened]... g good statistician (if even feasible to detect)?
I am RHP 1900 now. Maybe increase to 2000?
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree a bit dangerous line of thinking, but it was a hypothetical. . . . I would never do it.
I'd say that line of thinking is a bit dangerous.
For you guys haaving knowledge with engines, statistics, and RHP, etc., what is a best guess for a rating bump for a RHP 1900 player (his opponents 1700-2200 range) where the RHP 1900 player started relying on an engine to blunder check every move, and to also change his move to the engine move say on average once every 7 moves, but to basically go with his non-engine selected move the remaining moves (which may happen to agree with engine). 1900 to 2000? Also, is that style or amount of engine-use detectable?
I may not have phrased the question(s) very well.
In any case, I would never do that described above. Just curious and trying to understand. I have wondered if my opponents do it. Probably paranoia on my part.
Go mods.
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by VarenkaI'm sorry, you cannot understand those quotes. All those people say is that computers deeply influenced chess. Dubious openings were shown to be perfectly playable. New opening ideas were discovered. They did not say that modern GM play like computers!
Chess Cafe used to host an excellent article...
http://www.chesscafe.com/zip/misha.zip
Interview with Alexander Riazantsev (misha37)
Alexander Riazantsev. Born on September 12, 1985 in Moscow.
International grandmaster. 2006 Moscow champion. Current FIDE
rating – 2622.
MS: Has chess become more computer-like?
AR: With many strong GMs spe ...[text shortened]... ng players are learning this kind of chess.
----------
Do you know better than these guys?
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by moon1969I don't know, ask Skeeter.
A question I have been wondering: Is it realistically possible to clearly detect engine use by a strong player on RHP who uses the engine only for assistance such as with blunder checks and on critical moves only? Where he is not just blindly following the engine.
Avoid detection but say increase your RHP rating from 1850 (no engine) to 2100 (engine blunder check)?
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by moon1969I read a piece by a CC master of some sort (I don't remember who, it was a while ago but likely on the ICCF site) which suggested that your hypothetical method is the "ethical" way to use an engine. The suggestion was to do what CC players have been doing for years but only use an engine to check the viability of the move chosen. My immediate thought was that the poor chap was seriously deluded if he imagined that anyone was going to do it that way. Another idea often put forward is that one would use an engine only on the critical moves. So how do we know what the critical moves are?
I was thinking in the hypothetical that if I used an engine, I would first select my move without the engine and then check my selected move with the engine to make sure it is not a blunder, and then go with my selected move no matter how my move ranks in the engine (with the rare exception of relying on the engine for an incredible move).
My unfounded ...[text shortened]... g good statistician (if even feasible to detect)?
I am RHP 1900 now. Maybe increase to 2000?
I have experience of playing on sites where engine use is banned (here for example) and also where engine use is allowed. One of the latter type requires that one's identity be verifiable which has the effect of allowing anyone to look up a player's FIDE or other OTB record. The interesting thing is that site ratings generally follow OTB ratings. As far as I can tell, the less able OTB players don't use engines at all, the middle orders just follow the engine blindly and the top players have some method of engine use that gives them a huge advantage. Apparently you have to be damn good at chess to get the best out of an engine!
How this would equate to a rating boost for occasional engine use here is another matter. I suspect that just getting rid of blunders would have a significant effect (how big? I really don't know) but how long could you continue only using the engine for blunder checking? How long before you start to ask the engine for its opinion before you start thinking? How long before you stop thinking altogether and become the engine's postman?
On this site a good engine coupled with reasonable hardware can likely boost you into the stratosphere. I would suggest you don't try this. If you do, you could easily end up being the subject of a similar thread in a year's time.
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by VarenkaFreestyle isn't quite the same thing and I wouldn't think the ZackS team's USCF ratings are a true reflection of their freestyle abilities. If they spend a lot of time playing freestyle they are not likely to be entering many standard tournaments to get their ratings up. The freestylers I know generally ignore standard OTB chess because they find the man-machine interaction much more interesting. They don't play CC either because it takes too long to play a game. Strange creatures but it takes all sorts I suppose. So I'll modify what i said to "Apparently you have to be damn good at CC to get the best out of an engine in CC".
Not necessarily... 🙂
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2461