04 Dec 08
Originally posted by gezzaAs already stated, neither Anand, Fischer or top CC GMs play here.
Agreed, but that is the trouble - you can't take out Fisher's results without biasing the stats. But Anand's results for top move match up were not so different either.
And top CC players have higher match up results still?
You appear to be saying that match up rates alone are not enough. Top GMs and CC players have similar rates to the computers in th ...[text shortened]... tand that extremely high match up rates are an indication that a particular engine is in use.
But the Game Mods even require match ups above what the greatest players in both OTB and CC could achieve before they find "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of engine use. And the results must be statistically significant.
What more is required IYO?
04 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by gezzaWell, Fischer is dead or do I have to dig his body up and air mail it to your address to "prove" that? That seems to be about the same standard of proof you want to adopt as regards engine users at RHP.
You've stated it. Repeatedly. Now prove it.
Until then, you are just full of hot air.
Have a nice life.
Speaking of someone who ignores points raised by other people in this thread, you are undoubtedly the champion of that.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by KorchI know a CC player (GM Ulf Andersson) that can spend an entire night analyzing a critical position without using engines. This is the fun of CC - boldly going where no one has gone before by analyzing complex positions to death.
Talking about time spend per move - it depends on opponent. Against opponents below 1800 (important part from my games in progress) I` usually play in blitz tempo. Against stronger opponents I tend to spend more time per move. Maximum time which I have ever spend per move was more than hour but it happens very rarely - in very complicated positions in the mos ...[text shortened]... rating I hope you are not going to deny that RHP allows you to reach better results than in OTB?
In CC, it is the depth and quality of your analysis that counts. Nobody in the chess community will give you credit for your RHP rating, number of tournments won. etc.
05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by smaiaTaking into account number of moves made by most RHP players I have doubt if they have time to spend few hours per each move.
I know a CC player (GM Ulf Andersson) that can spend an entire night analyzing a critical position without using engines. This is the fun of CC - boldly going where no one has gone before by analyzing complex positions to death.
In CC, it is the depth and quality of your analysis that counts. Nobody in the chess community will give you credit for your RHP rating, number of tournments won. etc.
And according to statistics engine matchup by top CC players should not differ from matchup of top OTB players SO much as to some suspects.
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherThank you for the response. I largely agree although the fact that there is little variation among the most popular engines in average match-up rates is slightly surprising to me especially if Rybka was included in the test.
Despite the fact that there were 30 humans and only 10 engines (9 if you discount the Nokia Mobile) in the data posted, 5 engines were in the top 10 for 1st choice match-up (match-up variation is much higher for 1st choice alone), 8 engines in the top 10 for 2nd choice match-ups, 7 in the top 10 for 3rd move match-ups, 8 engines in the top 10 for 4th cho ...[text shortened]... the most popular engines, there was surprisingly little variation in average match-up rates.
But if the 3b bannings on this site are any indication, the most popular engines are seemingly Fritz 8, 9, and 10, so maybe the result is not so surprising. 😉
I do not think that there is much disparity in the strength of Fischer's play at his peak and and in the strength of play of modern GM's in their top performances despite the fact that Fischer had a few almost flawlessly accurate games in that sample. [If I recall correctly, his one game against Petrosian when the queens went off relatively early may have been flawless.]
To determine whether I am correct, I will scrutinize the statistics provided and the corresponding games to see how the strength of Fischer’s play and the play of the GMs at some later time.
I intend to compare for:
When mistakes were made [immediately out of opening, near time control, middlegame, endgame]
Types of positions for each game [many viable options, few viable options in each position]
I will solve for how the difference in the match-up rates of Fischer and the modern GMs translates into differences in match-up to an engine in moves per game; I would factor in the length of the games.
I would note playing conditions[time control, adjournments] and the existing chess theory at the time when considering chess strength.
Thank you for taking the time and and effort in game moderation when you were a game moderator.
05 Dec 08
Not quite on topic, but this is the chess forum, and in case anybody is interested…
Fischer played exceedingly high quality chess in all of his games in his 1971 Candidate matches; I have posted the games which I recall were some of the more interesting and highest quality games for me to analyze.
Gems:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044351
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044346
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044717
Very high quality:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044710
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044347
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044348
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044712
Very interesting:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106930
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044362
