Hi WW.
One game, but you do need certain positions and a series of moves.
Triggered off by that 'what is that all about.'
I sent an FTP v Big Ron based on just one game and I had only been here a month.
(I then spent years defending the Mods because they needed the proof.)
I wish I could find the game. Ron nicks a pawn which invites his opponent to
double Rooks on the 7th. There is some incredible, amazing, outstanding defending
going on with pieces going to 'odd' places only to be on the correct square
10 moves later. All this was seen 30 moves ago when the pawn was nicked.
Bollocks....Cheat....Big Ron was banned...................eventually.
One game.
It's the stuff you would not see in 'normal games.' Especially a player with
a game load on. When you have played over as many genuine human games I
have you get a nudge. Trust the nudge.
Zyglo - never mind all the guff - just the info I asked for.
Originally posted by wormwoodBut it's not really like that is it. For argument's sake let's say 10,000 games are played on here a day. If you analyse all 10,000 you'd likely find some amateur with a 100% matchup rate. If you just take Skeeter's most recent game and analyse it and find a 100% matchup rate the alarm bell should start. Both single games with a 100% matchup rate but the meanings are very different. A single game isn't the end of the analysis but I'll bet none of you would analyse a single game find a 100% matchup and then stop because it doesn't mean anything.
absolutely not!! it's not unheard of that even low rated amateurs score 100% matchup on a single game!
winning one time in lottery is good luck. winning 20 times in a row is cheating!
It's clear Skeeter was a 3(a) and a 3(c). In a weird kind of way a hat-trick would be an achievement.
Originally posted by ZygalskiAnd that's a good one because the matchup rates alone don't show that. This is half why these arguments are going on. Nobody should be afraid of analysis of their own games. Analysis results should be publishable. It won't make it any easier for engine drivers. There's no security through obscurity.
In other words, you can see how often the top choice moves were made when there were several other candidates which may have been within a few centipawns of the optimal move.
[/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34ah, okay, I get you now. yes of course, unprincipled play is what always catches the human player's eye. it might be 'correct' as far as the engine can calculate, but the human knows from experience that some things you simply don't do. you don't even look at it, because you know 99/100 it's time wasted. those are the kind of things all stronger players notice, immediately are 99% sure it's engine oil, but it's not sufficient for 'beyond unreasonable doubt'.
Hi WW.
One game, but you do need certain positions and a series of moves.
Triggered off by that 'what is that all about.'
I sent an FTP v Big Ron based on just one game and I had only been here a month.
(I then spent years defending the Mods because they needed the proof.)
I wish I could find the game. Ron nicks a pawn which invites his oppon ...[text shortened]... a nudge. Trust the nudge.
Zyglo - never mind all the guff - just the info I asked for.
there have actually been a couple of bans based on single moves. but they're something like a 2300 trying to 'win' a basic rook pawn ending with the defending king already in the corner etc. (I think that was 'mary ann', another 'fine lady' that took years to ban and had legions of smitten men in their midlife crisis defending her.)
mary ann also had a matchup rate close to 100% as I remember, but that never convinced the admins.
Originally posted by greenpawn34FWIW, here is some analysis using Rybka... not sure if using Houdini will make much difference...
Zyglo - be qiick I'm going out soon.
Analysis by Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64:
1. +- (5.13): 1.Ra8 Bxa5 2.Bxa5 Bd7 3.Ra6[] Re8 4.Ra7[] Re7[] 5.Rc7[] Ke8 6.Nxc6[] Bf5+ 7.Kd2 Rxc7 8.Bxc7[] Kd7 9.Nd4[] Bb1 10.Bb6 Be4 11.Ke3 Bb7 12.Ba5 Bg2 13.f5 Kc8 14.Bc3 Kb7 15.Ne6 Bh3 16.Kf4
2. +- (2.89): 1.Rxe7+ Bxe7 2.f5 Ke8 3.Nxc6 Bxf5+ 4.Kd4 Bc8 5.Nb8 Kd8 6.Be1 Kc7 7.Bg3+ Kb7 8.c6+ Ka7 9.Nd7 Bb4 10.Nxf6 Bxa5 11.Kc5 Bc3 12.Ne8 Bb2 13.c7 Kb7 14.Nd6+ Kxc7 15.Nc4+ Kd7 16.Nxb2
3. +- (2.22): 1.Nxc6 Rxa7[] 2.Nxa7 Ba6+ 3.Ke3 Ke6 4.Nc6 Bc7[] 5.Nd4+ Kd5 6.Nf5 Bd8 7.Ng7 f5 8.Nxf5 Bf6 9.Ng3 Bxh4 10.Nxh5 Bc8 11.Kd3 Ba6+ 12.Kc3 Bc4 13.Kc2 Kc6 14.f5 Kb5 15.Bc3 Kxc5 16.Nf4
Analysis by Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64:
1. -/+ (-1.36): 1...Rxa2 2.Rxa2 Bxa2 3.Ne3 Bc5 4.Nf5 Rd8 5.Rc1 Bf8 6.Ra1 Be6 7.Ra7 Bc8 8.Ne3 Bc5 9.Ra8 Kg7 10.h4 Rf8 11.hxg5 hxg5 12.Rb8 Bxe3 13.fxe3 f5 14.Bc2 Rd8 15.b4 Kf7 16.Bb3+ Kg6
2. -/+ (-1.10): 1...Bxa2 2.Nd4 Bb4 3.Red1 Rfe8 4.h3 Kf8 5.Nf5 h5 6.Nd4 Kg8 7.Kh2 Bc5 8.f4 gxf4 9.gxf4 Red8 10.Nf5 Rxd1 11.Rxd1
3. -/+ (-0.94): 1...Rfd8 2.a3 Rd2 3.b4 f6 4.exf6 Bxf6 5.Rad1 Rad8 6.Bf3 Rxd1 7.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 8.Bxd1 Kg7 9.Kf1 Bb2 10.Ke2 Kf6 11.Kd2 Ke5 12.Bh5 Bh3 13.f3 Bf5 14.g4
Analysis by Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64:
1. +/- (0.83): 1...Ng4 2.Rb7 Bf6 3.e5 Be7 4.f3 Nh6[] 5.g4 Rd8 6.Rxa7 Ng8 7.Rc1 Qg6 8.Na4 h5 9.gxh5 Qxh5 10.Nb6 g5 11.Bg3 Qh7 12.a4 Nh6
2. +/- (1.29): 1...0-0 2.Rb7 dxe4 3.Bxe4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 e5 5.Qxe5 Rae8 6.Rxd7 Bd8[] 7.Qd4 Rxe4[] 8.Qd1[] Qxd1+[] 9.Raxd1 Bf6 10.Rxa7 Bd4 11.Bd6 Rd8 12.Be5 Kf8 13.Bxd4 Rdxd4 14.Rxd4 Rxd4 15.Rc7 Ra4 16.Rxc6 Rxa2
3. +/- (1.35): 1...Rd8 2.Bf3 dxe4 3.Nxe4 Nxe4 4.Bxe4 Bf6 5.Qxd7+ Rxd7 6.Bxc2 Bxa1 7.Rxa1 0-0 8.Bd6 Rfd8 9.Rb1 g6 10.Kg2 Kg7 11.Kf3 f6 12.h3 Rc8 13.Kf4 a5 14.Be4 e5+
Analysis by Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 x64:
1. +- (2.31): 2.Rc1 Qb2 3.Rab1[] Qa3 4.exd5[] exd5 5.Re1+ Be6 6.Bd6[] Be7 7.Bxd5[] 0-0 8.Bxe6 Bxd6 9.cxd6 fxe6 10.Rxe6 Rae8 11.Rxe8 Rxe8 12.Qc4+ Kh8 13.Qxc6 Rd8 14.Rd1 h6 15.h3 Qb4 16.f3 Qb2 17.Qc5
2. +- (1.68): 2.Rb3 Ng4 3.f3 Bf6 4.e5[] Nxe5 5.Bxe5 Bxe5 6.Qxe5 0-0 7.Rd1 f6 8.Qd6 Rad8 9.Bh3 Rfe8 10.Qc7 a6 11.Qb7 a5 12.Qa7 Bc8 13.Qxa5 e5 14.Bxc8
3. +- (1.64): 2.Rb4 a5 3.Rbb1 Ng4 4.Rc1[] Bf6 5.e5[] Nxe5 6.Bxe5 Qf5 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Qd2 h5 9.Re1 h4 10.Rab1 hxg3 11.hxg3 e5 12.Na4 0-0 13.Rb7
Originally posted by thaughbaerno it shouldn't really. it doesn't matter if it's a 1200 or 2200 who gets the single 100% game. it can happen, and does happen, although extremely rarely. there have been games like that posted here during my years.
If you just take Skeeter's most recent game and analyse it and find a 100% matchup rate the alarm bell should start.
Originally posted by wormwoodBut it should.. you targeted it for other reasons. Stumbling across one by accident due to sheer volume is very different to honing in on one and finding you were correct.
no it shouldn't really. it doesn't matter if it's a 1200 or 2200 who gets the single 100% game. it can happen, and does happen, although extremely rarely. there have been games like that posted here during my years.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Houdini 1.03a x64 4_CPU Hash:512 Time:30s Max Depth:20ply
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.
[fen]2bb4/R3rk2/2p2p2/P1P4p/1B1N1P1P/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 51[/fen]
Skeets play ...[text shortened]... Edit: Sorry mate cannot give Skeets surname, that would be against TOS.
(ask your computer.) 😉
Game 6646398
53. Ra8 { Ra8 533 20 : Rxe7+ 192 20 : Nxc6 172 20 : Ne6 -169 20 }
Game 7696193
21. Rxa2 { Rxa2 -97 20 : b4 -147 20 : Reb1 -156 20 : b3 -168 20 }
Game 7696189
14... Bd8 { Ng4 46 17 : 0-0 51 17 : h6 97 17 : Nh5 119 17 }
15. Rb4 { Rb3 149 18 : Rc1 140 17 : Rb4 124 17 : exd5 40 17 }
according to FIDE records, there are 6 active female players in her country, none of them skeeter. highest one rated 2020. 5/6 of them are titled. she never claimed to have a FIDE title, did she? but she did claim to have a FIDE rating, a considerably higher one than 2020.
the one remaining untitled female player is rated 1409. but wrong name.
her national chess federation doesn't have anyone registered by her name either.
just tying up loose ends.
Cheers V.
Skeets played Ra8 here - the top move.
This is one up for Skeeter. (IMO).
Imagine you are a cheat. You know your games are being looked at.
In this position a box user would (IMO) back away from the top move if
the 2nd move - the more mundane Rxe7+ still won - the numbers indicate it does.
For someone as long as Skeets has been on the site and IF she was a cheat.
She would have avoided detection by choosing 2nd 3rd 4th moves if they still won.
Certainly not proof she is not a cheat. But an opportunity, knowing her games
were being scrutinised to NOT play a top massive score move.
Good Move. She is playing without a care in the world not trying to hide anything.
Just food for thought - nothing else.
Have to go now - but I'll be back.
(and it won't all be one-sided).
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34Frankly, yes. Good riddance.
Happy now?
There is a strong possibility it was for persitant forum abuse.
What, you mean, for him not being allowed to any more?
The most persistant forum abuser on this site was skeeter.
Now if all the other habitual accusers could go his way, we'd have a forum worth reading again.
Richard
Originally posted by ZygalskiSorry GP.. I sort of have to agree with Zyg on this one.. we can play bluff/double bluff/triple bluff all day.
Hang on.
So playing the less obvious (in your opinion) but preferred engine choice move helps your case that skeeter wasn't an engine user???
Interesting logic. I must remember that one next time I have to defend someone who's utterly duped me.
Originally posted by wormwoodThat is either nonsense or shows, that you don't want to apply the rules of probability.
winning one time in lottery is good luck. winning 20 times in a row is cheating!
Winning 20 times in a row in the lottery is very unlikely. Not cheating. Just unlikely.