Originally posted by wormwoodWell, I think more important is the fact that probably 5-10% of his games max. would be in the Traxler.
what a load of bs! no amount of fritzed opening preparation is going tip the scale over, that's just not the way it works. at best you can get maybe 3-4 moves after the last db move until the game deviates. that's not going to leave more than a minuscule dent into your matchup percentage.
although I'm not at all surprised a caught engine user wouldn't have known that.
Originally posted by cmsMasterThere are enough admissions in that discussion to show the ban was justified:
I think some people may be interested in this:
From Playchess:
1': Blitz 15´ for Ameteur, 3 ROUNDS, start at 4:15
Ih8sens: hi...
->Ih8sens: hey man
->Ih8sens: whats the deal
Ih8sens: saw the forum a little while ago.. that sucks
Ih8sens: I dunno..
->Ih8sens: that thread's on fire, about 70 posts now
Ih8sens: I seriously hope I was banned ...[text shortened]... 've heard his own thoughts - or at least what he'll tell me.
ih8sens: "I had a lot of engine analysis on [the Traxler] and yes, I used it in game.."
ih8sens: "yah I had gotten pretty deep in the traxler"
ih8sens "It's just so wierd.. pregame analysis was explicitly allowed!"
cmsMaster: "Ih8sens: but its a tough decision for them to make when they see youplay engine moves 15-20 moves into a game"
Ih8sens: "yah true but gm's do that... and I certainly am still an
aspiring GM"
Thus the reasoning goes that, despite his true strength being probably in the 1500 to maybe 1700 range, as an "aspiring GM" he admits to using engine analysis 15-20 moves deep because GMs do it.
cmsMaster pointed out the important distinctions between a 1500 rated player consulting an engine to make moves 15-20 moves deep and a GM, who after years of hard work and study, develops a knowledge of an opening repetoire that can run 20 moves (or more deep) but who still has to play these moves on the board, without the assistance of a handy pocket Fritz.
Hopefully he has learned his lesson, can put aside his rationalizations, and begin the process of playing unassisted chess again on another site (whether CC or OTB).
I have to admit that I am surprised and very disappointed. He posted in the forums frequently and some of his posts were actually insightful. I think he really tried to improve and liked chess but used an engine out of dissatisfaction with his progress. Of course, this changes nothing and it really defeats the purpose of chess to use an engine instead of your brain. It's really a shame but the fact that he got caught shows that those who cheat don't go far anyway.
Originally posted by exigentskyI'm pissed off! The Funky Movers have tried to keep engines out of our Clan and this guy strung us along like a bunch of chumps!! The damage that these selfish pricks cause goes way beyond a few lost chess games. Once again we are complicite in cheating and that PISSES me off big time!! 😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠ðŸ˜
I have to admit that I am surprised and very disappointed. He posted in the forums frequently and some of his posts were actually insightful. I think he really tried to improve and liked chess but used an engine out of dissatisfaction with his progress. Of course, this changes nothing and it really defeats the purpose of chess to use an engine instead of ...[text shortened]... really a shame but the fact that he got caught shows that those who cheat don't go far anyway.
Originally posted by cmsMasterI liked his traxler posts.
He may have posted some immature topics - particularly if it was about the Traxler, but he was active nonetheless and still offered some interesting ideas. I joined his clan, and he was active in that forum too, again sometimes offering interesting stuff.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexWe know this is false. He's admitted to consulting the engine analysis, and apparently quite deeply, during the game itself.
He never hid the fact that he used computers to develop his opening, but would never actually use one during a game and nobody really disagreed with him in the forums but all of a sudden he gets banned and people are all saying how obvious it was.
What will happen now if a weaker player gets hold of a new opening book (with analysis checked by a ...[text shortened]... masters use computers to prepare their openings and can probably memorise upwards of 20 moves)?
Your second point, and don't take it personally because I usually respect what you contribute here, is pure fallacy. Opening books are not pages of engine output, nor are they made up of machine vs machine or man vs machine games. They are composed of theory derived and attributed to the human players who developed that theory in their games. That most masters use computers to develop their opening (if this is really true, I doubt it though) is a strawman. They may, on their own and independently, attempt to find a novelty or further explore a book line with the aid of an engine.
However, its quite conceivable that they may never get to use the results of this research because their opponent has to cooperate by playing 10, 15, or 20 moves into the existing book line where their research is focused without deviating anywhere along the way. Research which, by the way, is informed primarily by their own considerable playing strength and chess understanding, to which the computer analysis adds only a footnote. And if they do get to use it, it may be months or even years before the opportunity arises. When it does, whenever that is, they aren't going to be able to pop out their handy little database with the variations stored and begin playing from it to refresh their memory.
Contrast that with the CC player of someone like ih8sens ability, or any other non-Master, who attempts the same research. In the latter case the playing strength and chess understanding isn't there and the engine isn't supplementing the research, the engine analysis is the research. And unlike with the case of the OTB player who plays, if he's very active, maybe a 5-7 round tournament or 2 a month, the RHP player can have 50, 60, 100 games in progress at a time if he's a subscriber, making his "research" far more likely to be put to use. Quite possibly in several games at the same time. Further more, even if its months before he gets to use it, that "research" is sitting in wait in his database which he can consult at any time. In effect, because such research is timeless, accessable, and can be reproduced at will with 100% accuracy can you really believe there's a distinction between consulting such "pre-existing engine research" and simply firing Fritz up to do the same thing on the spot? If there's any difference at all, I don't see it. The effect is 100% the same thing and the TOS absolutely, with no exceptions prohibts the later; therefore it must, by extension, prohibit the former as well.
I had one loss and one draw with him. I've posted his closing message to me on the final move of the draw. It's a boring game and not worth playing through, but I've included it to show it. That's all.
The point is, based on his own statement, that he had a 100% record in clan match games up to this draw. This really points out the problem with engine users - they mess things up for a lot of players. I've said many times that I don't mind playing engines. I think that engineers are wasting their time. But if a clan wins with an engine user, it taints the whole clan and all their wins.
ih8sens: and you have the distinction of being the opponent to break my winning streak. I haven't lost or drawn a clan game yet, until now.
Good Game
Game 3610270
Originally posted by coquetteTheir effects are so far reaching that they can ruin an otherwise good site. As a group I absolutely loathe them. Among just a few of the problems they create:
I had one loss and one draw with him. I've posted his closing message to me on the final move of the draw. It's a boring game and not worth playing through, but I've included it to show it. That's all.
The point is, based on his own statement, that he had a 100% record in clan match games up to this draw. This really points out the problem with engine us ...[text shortened]... . I haven't lost or drawn a clan game yet, until now.
Good Game
Game 3610270
a. They corrupt clan challenges, as you mentioned.
b. They ruin tournaments by robbing victories from the deserving players who worked to win them.
c. They corrupt the ratings system.
d. They poison people from internet chess who've had the misfortune of playing one and become convinced that internet players are nothing but a bunch of cheaters.
e. They perpetrate a form of fraud upon their opponents who are led to believe they are playing a person and not a machine.
f. They deceive their peers who may accord them respect they haven't earned, or accept from them wisdom they don't possess.
I just finished reading the thread and I have something to add. First of all, there is nothing against the rules with having preparation of any quality and length. In fact, my own preparation in the 9. Nbd2 variation of the Ba6 QID goes right up until an equal 4-3 vs 3-3 rook and pawn endgame. The 9. Nbd2 variation essentially forces massive exchanges and once some basic understanding is achieved it is quite easy to play 30 moves of theory without even having attempted to memorize any moves. Incidentally, this is precisely why master players rarely play 9. Nbd2 unless they want to try to get a draw. Moreover, other openings have variations that lead to perpetual after 15-20 moves. Many of these moves match closely to engine recommendations but of course it wouldn't be fair to consider these players cheaters. Secondly, it is not out of the question that some players on RHP have deep original analysis in their pet openings. Most likely, this analysis was assisted by engines and isn't far from their evaluations. Employing moves from this analysis in-game is the reward for hard work and exploration and there is nothing wrong with using it as long as it was all prepared PRIOR to the game. I spent hundreds of hours analyzing the intricacies of the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon. Using Chess Openings for Black, Explained, several databases and engines I created a Bookup opening book with thousands of positions. Somewhat disappointingly, even with its scope and my excellent memory, I've had very few games on RHP or elsewhere in which I actually had a chance to use these variations -original or not. Players, even at the 1800+ level, tended to deviate before 10 moves. The most benefit was from the process of creating the opening book and my better understanding as a result. It helped that I was always considering my own judgment and thus explored many bad variations. Sometimes knowing why a variation is bad is more useful than knowing the moves of the right one. Anyway, there is a clear distinction between fantastic opening preparation before the game and plugging the game into a chess engine while it's in progress. I hope everyone understands that and I doubt he was banned for having good opening preparation. Even at the 2000+ level, it is rare for both players to cooperate and play known theory for more than 10-15 moves and of course that makes up less than half the length of a normal game. It just tends to develop the pieces for a complex struggle and that's when a player's strength is really visible.