Originally posted by watchyourbackrankI think that Greenpawn and others are well aware of the difference of 'computer-like' chess and 'good' chess.
if I read Zygalskis postings right all he has done is testing to which degree Skeeter chose same moves as a computer would have chosen, no?
Greenpawn and others seem to confuse this test with an evaluation of good or bad chess. It's not.
correct me if i'm wrong.
The point is the interpretation of the cold numbers, which Zygalski presents. They are taken as true (as we believe him not making mistakes in the analysis), yet almost none makes the effort to reproduce them him/herself (even though no1marauder commented to actually make that effort, using a different engine).
Given the numbers presented, the question is just, whether they actually proove that Skeeter was an engine user.
For the admins the answer is a clear no. Apparently they don't mind banning Skeeter, but they didn't do that because of engine use.
Do the numbers proove to me that Skeeter was a cheat? No, they don't proove it.
GP has given some reason for the high match-up rates in some of the games. These are plausible explanations - they also don't proove she was not a cheat.
This may sound trivial, but it shouldn't be forgotten. Our law-systems on most places of this planet are living with the thought 'if in doubt, give freedom'. This has taken humanity thousands of years to establish and it is a valuable good.
This eternal right - if in doubt, let go free - is actually so valuable, that even IF Skeeter was a cheat for real and it would be proven at some point, there is no reason to now behave less humane.
This value stands much higher then any cheap, dirty cheater of cc games. They are not worth it, to brake those values
You are again free to make up your own mind. But so far noone has shown ubreakable proof - the very same reason, why she was not banned by the admins before!
You may even come along and voice your oppinion. It will be considered as such - an oppinion...
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by watchyourbackrankhttp://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=135047&page=3#post_2557207
if I read Zygalskis postings right all he has done is testing to which degree Skeeter chose same moves as a computer would have chosen, no?
Greenpawn and others seem to confuse this test with an evaluation of good or bad chess. It's not.
correct me if i'm wrong.
Originally posted by Gatecrasher
"Strong humans and computers play differently. Strong humans generally play to specific strategies, to a specific plan, whereas engines will quite happily go off on tangents for a 0.01 pawn advantage, after evaluating millions of positions in a matter of seconds. These are moves and evaluations that strong human beings wouldn't even begin to consider, even if they were capable.
Simplistically, if you compare verifiably strong human match-up rates to engines over many games, the level of agreement with engines is far lower than many "top players" on RHP manage to consistently achieve.
While it is true that super-GMs get higher match-ups than regular GMs, who in turn get higher match-ups than IMs, who in turn get higher match-ups than FM's, etc, many players here and on other internet chess sites are capable of extraordinary match-ups; far, far, far in excess of the super-GM range. Even the top echelons of correspondence chess in the pre-computer era had similar match-up rates as today's regular GMs (and less than current super GMs)
There are some really good players at RHP whose match-up stats fall below GM/IM levels. These are the strong human players, who play excellent chess without the need to mimic Rybka or Fritz. And then there are those who, for want of a better word, are cheats."
Sums it up, really.
Originally posted by ZygalskiIs this a tribute to Skeeter?
Even the top echelons of correspondence chess in the pre-computer era had similar match-up rates as today's regular GMs (and less than current super GMs)
Isn't it true, that todays GMs/IMs also analyze and practice with engine help and that their game has become (naturally) more engine-like because of this?
Isn't Skeeter playing correspondence chess and (let's assume) an awesome chess player OTB, who apparently excels in cc?
Wouldn't that lead to very high match-up rates?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by watchyourbackrankyou are correct.
if I read Zygalskis postings right all he has done is testing to which degree Skeeter chose same moves as a computer would have chosen, no?
Greenpawn and others seem to confuse this test with an evaluation of good or bad chess. It's not.
correct me if i'm wrong.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by tharkeshreply to tharkesh
I think that Greenpawn and others are well aware of the difference of 'computer-like' chess and 'good' chess.
That's not my impression after reading his post in which he 'discards' some of the games analysed by zygalski
The point is the interpretation of the cold numbers, which Zygalski presents. They are taken as true (as we believe him not making mistakes in the analysis), yet almost none makes the effort to reproduce them him/herself (even though no1marauder commented to actually make that effort, using a different engine).
I'm not accepting zygalskis numbers as 'true'. They are no more than a summary of a statistical experiment. Which was excactly my point!
In principle, it has absolutely nothing to do with chess.
Given the numbers presented, the question is just, whether they actually [b]proove that Skeeter was an engine user. For the admins the answer is a clear no. Apparently they don't mind banning Skeeter, but they didn't do that because of engine use.[/b]
Do you know why he was banned? If yes, where is that information available?
Do the numbers [b]proove to me that Skeeter was a cheat? No, they don't proove it.[/b]
A statistical experiment is never 100% proof. Just like DNA proof it can only provide probabilities.
GP has given some reason for the high match-up rates in some of the games. These are plausible explanations - they also don't [b]proove she was not a cheat.[/b]
true
This may sound trivial, but it shouldn't be forgotten. Our law-systems on most places of this planet are living with the thought 'if in doubt, give freedom'. This has taken humanity thousands of years to establish and it is a valuable good.
This eternal right - if in doubt, let go free - is actually so valuable, that even IF Skeeter was a cheat for real and it would be proven at some point, there is no reason to now behave less humane.
This value stands much higher then any cheap, dirty cheater of cc games. They are not worth it, to brake those values
agree although the fact that skeeter is banned already makes the argument largely irrelevant.
You are again free to make up your own mind. But so far noone has shown ubreakable proof - the very same reason, why she was not banned by the admins before!
You may even come along and voice your oppinion. It will be considered as such - an oppinion...
I have no opinion whether Skeeter was a cheater or not. And I don't really care either
07 Jan 12
1 edit
Hallo watchyourbackrank!
I agree with your post, but just used it to clear up the point, why I think that GP and others know the difference very well.
As for her banning, I can not tell you more, then has been posted before in this thread. It was agreed, that she was banned for multiple, repeated forum-abuse (please look up some of GPs comments in this thread earlier).
Again, I just know it as much as one can know it from written messages. However, there is no reason to not believe this information (ALL agree, she was going over the limits too often)...
07 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodGood to know... how about the points I posted in the post on top of this page?
none of the matchup rates of past CC masters & present OTB masters were affected by what GP sees as mitigating factors. none.
Even the top echelons of correspondence chess in the pre-computer era had similar match-up rates as today's regular GMs (and less than current super GMs) from Gatecrasher
Is this a tribute to Skeeter?
Isn't it true, that todays GMs/IMs also analyze and practice with engine help and that their game has become (naturally) more engine-like because of this?
Isn't Skeeter playing correspondence chess and (let's assume) an awesome chess player OTB, who apparently excels in cc?
Wouldn't that lead to very high match-up rates?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by tharkeshA little over 2000 FIDE (apparently) in 2003 is not "awesome" by any stretch of the imagination.
...Isn't Skeeter playing correspondence chess and (let's assume) an awesome chess player OTB, who apparently excels in cc?
Wouldn't that lead to very high match-up rates?
It's solid, decent local club player standard.
No way does it explain matching 1st choice to a 3100 Elo rated engine over 60% of the time in over 800 non-database positions in 20 games vs 2000+ RHP rateds.
Hi Zyg...
You are right Carmine12 was over 2000 (?) at one time and now quit.
Still not happy with the standard of these games. Hardly a test.
Just need to clear a few things up from what I have seen so far.
Need your numbers.
ferreiraglenn v Skeeter. This position.
Skeets played 51.Ra8 (your box rating on this)
Need your box rating on 51. Rxe7+
In Carmine v Skeet, This position.
Black played 21...Rxa2 what does your kit say, is this is best?
Skeeter v MikeWallace.
A much better example. Something I get my teeth into.
Black nicks a dodgy looking b2 pawn with the Queen.
Skeets builds a net to trap the Queen. Then here.
Black played 14...Bd8. (score? top move?) then 15.Rb4 (Score? top move?)
Edit: Sorry mate cannot give Skeets surname, that would be against TOS.
(ask your computer.) 😉
GP.
It's becoming clear to me that you've been duped by one of the most devious, manipulative & downright grotesque members that this site has seen.
No amount of evidence I can produce will convince you, so I'm not playing your game any more.
Sorry old chap.
Time to wake up & smell the coffee.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiHow about the first question I asked?
A little over 2000 FIDE (apparently) in 2003 is not "awesome" by any stretch of the imagination.
It's solid, decent local club player standard.
No way does it explain matching 1st choice to a 3100 Elo rated engine over 60% of the time in over 800 non-database positions in 20 games vs 2000+ RHP rateds.
Don't GMs and IMs practice and analyze with engines nowadays on a regular basis?
Isn't their play more engine-like then in the time before computers?
Has ever anyone tried to compare todays young GMs/IMs (who basically started learning in the computer era) match-up rates?
Shouldn't their match-up rates be higher on average then for the GMs/IMs before computer era?