Originally posted by ReelEmInReidIt seems most are against computer help.
How many people think we can identify those who use external help?
Who thinks it is futile even trying to identify those that do?
Do you think it is worth rooting computer users out? Is it possible? I doubt it personally.
John.
Originally posted by ReelEmInReidThen why did you bother making an entire thread devoted to arguing that people shouldn't do what everybody knows is against the rules?? If it ain't possible to root 'em out, then we might as well just play our best moves that we can see on the board and not worry about it. What is your point?
It seems most are against computer help.
Do people think it is worth rooting computer users out? Is it possible and practical?
I doubt it personally.
John.
Originally posted by no1marauderUmmm, I don't think I did dedicate a thread to that. I just want to raise awareness of some of these issues.
Then why did you bother making an entire thread devoted to arguing that people shouldn't do what everybody knows is against the rules??
I think a lot of people take the following as granted:
1) Top players can beat strong computers at will.
2) People at the top of the ratings table are unlikely to be using a computer.
A culture of denial is propogated in the forums because a lot of players want to believe the above. For me this mars an otherwise great site.
John.
Originally posted by ReelEmInReidIt seems a lot of people do. Theres plenty of games on the net of strong chess players (master up) playing computers in correspondence chess, even against the weaker engines the master normally loses or just manages to draw.
Ummm, I don't think I did dedicate a thread to that. I just want to raise awareness of some of these issues.
I think a lot of people take the following as granted:
1) Top players can beat strong computers at will.
2) People at the top of the ratings table are unlikely to be using a computer.
A culture of denial is propogated in the forums b ...[text shortened]... lot of players want to believe the above. For me this mars an otherwise great site.
John.
Originally posted by kingisdead
I love to play against my Novag on my own, outside of online play, but feel that using it online to help me would be downright WRONG, as well as a crutch that I don't want need or want.
Man, I really want to saee how I myself stack up against other players on the web. The computer for help is POINTLESS. If the machine is doing all my thinking for me, ...[text shortened]... uld be ridiculous or wrong in one scenario, then it is wrong in the current one.
Nuff said.
Very well said. Got my rec. 🙂
Originally posted by ReelEmInReidAs a newbie, I wonder about this too. There seems to be a huge culture of protecting the big guns on this site, as if they are superheros or something. Trackhead released a black list of possible cheaters, but stated half of the top 40 likely cheat, but he wouldn't realease it in fear of flaming. It may be possible he is full of crap as people state, but the fact remains that merely questioning the ability of a single top 40 player or investigating them will lead you to an onslaught of scrutiny and denial, it's as if people (and their silly little clanmates and clan patriotism) ARE ACTUALLY TRYING to HIDE something. . .
Ummm, I don't think I did dedicate a thread to that. I just want to raise awareness of some of these issues.
I think a lot of people take the following as granted:
1) Top players can beat strong computers at will.
2) People at the top of the ratings table are unlikely to be using a computer.
A culture of denial is propogated in the forums b ...[text shortened]... lot of players want to believe the above. For me this mars an otherwise great site.
John.
I look at some of the top players, and it's GM work, yet Russ claims there are no GM's here, so what is it? What's going on here? Help me, because if there is no cheating in the top 40, then please forgive me for being a little confused...🙄
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowVery good point, again, I will not name names, but some top players do not have any/or much of any losses. Even if they didn't cheat, they are bound to bump into a cheater every now and then to give them a loss. And don't tell me these masters can beat Fritz, it only has a rating of 2900, whoa, that must be easy! Forget the fact that only a handful of GM's could beat it, I guess Kramnik ventures on RHP, any guess who Vlad is? LOL!
It seems a lot of people do. Theres plenty of games on the net of strong chess players (master up) playing computers in correspondence chess, even against the weaker engines the master normally loses or just manages to draw.
Originally posted by mateuloseIf I'm thinking 8 or 10 moves ahead, and the computer guides me through the first 3 for me to get my mind "into the game" then I don't see how it's playing for me.
"I've been away from chess for a very long time, and find the computer helps stretch my brain."
<sarcasm>What a perfect world that would be, if we could get everyone to do the thinking FOR US to succeed! Hey, I don't wanna think, just plug in the chess engine and it does the work for me! I don't suck at chess after all! </sarcasm>
If you think technology is just a button you press to do things for you, then you must have dropped out of school before getting to mathematics.
Why this has to go on and on, I just don't understand. We're all on the honor system here; short of an outright admission it is extremely difficult to prove anyone's using an engine. By suggesting some unidentified strong player "must" be using an engine because he's really good, smacks of jealousy and sour grapes. If you don't have any proof that someone is using an engine, then I think you're being a disruptive jerk by suggesting they are, even if you only hint at who you're accusing without proof! Just play your games, follow the rules and stop worrying about it. If it's such a problem inside your head that you can't get over it, you should probably just stick to OTB play because there's just no way of assuring someone on the net isn't using an engine. Other than that, I'll take people at their word and play the best I can; after all, we ain't winning valuable cash prizes here!
Originally posted by mateuloseI'll keep banging this drum - it has a rating of 2900+ BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GET TIRED.
Very good point, again, I will not name names, but some top players do not have any/or much of any losses. Even if they didn't cheat, they are bound to bump into a cheater every now and then to give them a loss. And don't tell me these masters can beat Fritz, it only has a rating of 2900, whoa, that must be easy! Forget the fact that only a handful of GM's could beat it, I guess Kramnik ventures on RHP, any guess who Vlad is? LOL!
GM's often get tremendous positions against computers, but then can't put them away under a standard time control, lose control of the position, and get blown up through a tactical shot. Was very much the case in the latest 'Man v. Machine' tournament.
What is even more interesting is that a CC GM is playing 6 games against various computers at www.chessfriend.com and I've seen a few posts accusing one of the computers of having used human help 🙂
Originally posted by mateuloseI'm saying you should just play your best moves and stop insinuating that other people are cheaters because they're better than you. Maybe some day you'll be one of the best players on the site and somebody who's been on the site for a month will say you're a cheater because you're such a strong player!!
So, are you saying the best RHP players could roll over Fritz? 😲
I recently received Fritz8,I can tell you it does NOT play at 2900 strength on a regular PC.It does NOT take a top-class GM to beat it.The game below is played by me,my first game vs Fritz 8,I didn't use any help of books,databases or engines nor did I consult a GM for advise during the game.The time control was 2 hours for 40 moves,1 hour for 20 moves,30 minutes KO.Fritz was running on a Pentium 4,1.60GHz,256MB.I'm rated a mere 1850ish on ICC and 1750ish here.If you look at the game,you will see that I only lacked a bit of endgame technique to draw the beast.Now,if I can do that in OTB style chess,then why wouldn't a master,or an untitled but better player than me,be able to do it in correspondence?
I'm not saying there's no computer usage on rhp,and yes,the ones doing it would be at the top rather than the bottom.What I am trying to provide is some proof that it's possible for good players to beat the machines,and that the salestalk of their enormous ELO strength is not valid here.
[Event "*'"]
[Site "*"]
[Date "2004.10.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SLAL"]
[Black "Fritz 8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2916"]
[ECO "B52"]
{
B52: Sicilian: Moscow Variation with 3...Bd7
}
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. c4 Nc6 6. O-O Nf6 7. Nc3 g6 8. d3 Bg7 9. h3 O-O 10. Be3 a6 11. Qd2 e6 12. Bh6 Rfd8 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14. d4 cxd4 15. Nxd4 Qc7 16. b3 Nxd4 17. Qxd4
Rac8 18. Rac1 Qc5 19. Qxc5 Rxc5 20. Rfd1 h5 21. f4 e5 22. g3 h4 23. fxe5 Rxe5 24. Rd4 b5 25. cxb5 axb5 26. gxh4 Rc8 27. Ne2 Rxc1+ 28. Nxc1 Nxe4 29.Nd3 Re6 30. Nf4 Re8 31. a4 bxa4 32. bxa4 Nc5 33. a5 Nb3 34. Rxd6 Re4 35.Ng2 Nxa5 36. h5 Nc4 37. Rd5 gxh5 38. Rxh5 Ne5 39. Kf2 f6 40. Rh4 Nd3+ 41.Kf3 Re8 42. Rd4 Ne5+ 43.Kf4 Ra8 44. Ne3 Kg6 45. Ng4 Nf7 46. Rb4 Ng5 47.Rb6 Ra4+ 48.Kg3 Ra3+ 49.Kg2 Ne4 50. Rb8 Kg5 51. Rb2 Rg3+ 52. Kh2 Rc3 53. Nf2 Ng3 54.
Kg2 f5 55. Ra2 Nh5 56. Ra4 Nf4+ 57. Kh2 Rf3 58. Ra2 Kh4 59. Rb2 Rg3 60.Ra2 Rg2+ 61.Kh1 Kg3 62.Ra3+ Kxf2 63. Ra2+ Ne2
64. Rxe2+ Kxe2 65. Kxg2 f4
0-1
Sir Lot.
Originally posted by OsseHahaaaa!That's a good one!Darn cheating comps,using human help,oh the shame,THE SHAME! LOL
I'll keep banging this drum - it has a rating of 2900+ BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GET TIRED.
GM's often get tremendous positions against computers, but then can't put them away under a standard time control, lose control of the position, and get blown up through a tactical shot. Was very much the case in the latest 'Man v. Machine' tournament.
What is even ...[text shortened]... friend.com and I've seen a few posts accusing one of the computers of having used human help 🙂