Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyYou dont quite understand, at every point in the game there is a lot of variation to pick from, those numbers were just there to show how much. The way you pick the moves in these variations will decide your style of play. In most moves there are say 5 playable choices (more in a lot of positions, when you cover all styles of play), so 5 x 5 is 25 for one move of black and white, then 5 x 25 is 125 for whites next move and so on. At the end of 40 moves the chance of following fritz moves are stupidly low, the chance for doing it 10 games on the run are impossible.
Yes, but your forgetting one thing, the majority of all these possible moves are utter rubbish, ...............
.............We even get obsessed with numbers, oh how we love our ratings, lol
forevergreen
Fritz will pick the same move over and over again in the same position, a chess game could be posted here and my fritz would produce the same as the fritz belonging to someone else on the site. This conformity is how you can tell if someone is cheating. Where as if you give the position to humans they will play different variations from it, depending on their style of play.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowI don't think it works that way.I propose a simple test: Play a game against fritz and post it,I will then replay it against mine.Let's see how quick it diverts from that game.
You dont quite understand, at every point in the game there is a lot of variation to pick from, those numbers were just there to show how much. The way you pick the moves in these variations will decide your style of play. In most moves there are say 5 playable choices (more in a lot of positions, when you cover all styles of play), so 5 x 5 is 25 ...[text shortened]... osition to humans they will play different variations from it, depending on their style of play.
Which version of fritz ? Its the analysis part of fritz that people use to cheat. So the game will have to be one already played and then have fritz kibiter each move, say for 3 mins ? Yours will be the same as mine, since if i look at the game with fritz 8 today, when i look at it tomorrow with fritz 8 the moves are still the same, i have a couple of pcs both with fritz on them they both offer the exact same variations on each move, the speed of the pc and the length of time spent analysing normally means the variations differ say 3 or 4 moves down them, but the first moves for the top 4 recommended moves will be the same, and those are the ones that cheaters use.
Burn,A (2530) - Cohn,E (2480) [D60]
1912
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 a6 9.0-0 c5 10.Qe2 b5 11.Bb3 Bb7 12.Rad1 Qa5 13.Ne5 Rfe8 14.f4 c4 15.Bc2 Nf8 16.f5 Qc7 17.fxe6 Nxe6 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.d5 Qe5 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 1-0
Iv used fritz 8, thinking for 3 mins with 4 variations on the moves. Since the Kibiter option has to be done by hand, it might be 2mins 55 seconds 3 mins 10 seconds etc, but i dont think that will effect the out come much.
Burn,A (2530) - Cohn,E (2480) [D60]
1912
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 a6 9.0-0 c5 10.Qe2 b5 11.Bb3 Bb7
[Fritz 8: 1) 11...b4 12.Na4 cxd4 13.exd4 Bb7 14.Rfc1 Nd5 15.Bd2 Nc7 -0.22/12 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 11...Bb7 12.a3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Qb6 14.Bc2 Rfd8 15.Rfd1 -0.13/12 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 11...h6 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.dxc5 Bb7 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.c6 Bxc6 -0.09/12 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 11...cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bb7 13.Rfd1 Qb6 14.Rac1 Rfd8 15.f3 Bd6 16.Qd2 -0.03/12 ]
12.Rad1 Qa5 13.Ne5 Rfe8
[Fritz 8: 1) 13...Rfd8 14.Nxd7 Rxd7 15.dxc5 Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Qc7 17.Bc2 Qxc5 0.16/11 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 13...Qc7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.dxc5 Qc6 16.e4 Nxe4 0.16/11 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 13...Rad8 14.Nxd7 Rxd7 15.dxc5 Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Qc7 17.e4 Qxc5 0.25/11 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 13...Bd8 14.Bf4 Be7 15.d5 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 c4 17.d6 0.25/11 ]
14.f4 c4 15.Bc2 Nf8 16.f5 Qc7 17.fxe6 Nxe6
[Fritz 8: 1) 17...Nxe6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Rxf6 gxf6 20.Ng4 Kg7 21.Qf2 Qe7 22.Nh6 0.25/12 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 17...fxe6 18.Qf2 b4 19.Qg3 Nh5 20.Qh4 bxc3 0.75/11 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 17...Kh8 18.exf7 Red8 19.Bxf6 b4 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Na4 6.06/11 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 17...Rec8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.exf7+ Kh8 20.Rxf6 Qe7 21.Rb6 Qc7 6.25/11 ]
18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.Bxf6 Bxf6
[Fritz 8: 1) 20...Bxf6 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Bg6 Qd8 23.Rxf6+ Qxf6 24.Rf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Red8 26.d5 Rxd5 2.16/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 20...g6 21.Bxg6 Bxf6 22.Bxe8 Qe7 23.Qf5 b4 24.Qxf6 Rxe8 3.12/12 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 20...gxf6 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Qh6+ Ng7 23.Bg6 Bd8 24.d5 Qf7 25.Bxf7 Kxf7 26.Rf3 6.19/11 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 20...h6 7.50/12 ]
21.Qxh7+
[Fritz 8: 1) 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Bg6 Qd8 23.Rxf6+ Qxf6 24.Rf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Red8 26.d5 Rxd5 2.16/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 21.Bxh7+ Kf8 22.d5 Qb6 23.dxe6 Rxe6 24.Kh1 Rd8 25.Bg6 Rxd1 26.Nxd1 1.28/13 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.Bxh7+ Kf8 23.Qxd5 Qc8 -0.31/12 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 21.Ne4 Nf8 22.Rxf6 Rxe4 23.Bxe4 gxf6 24.Qg4+ Kh8 25.Bxb7 -0.91/12 ]
21...Kf8
[Fritz 8: 1) 21...Kf8 22.Bg6 Qd8 23.Rxf6+ Qxf6 24.Rf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Red8 26.d5 2.16/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 21...Kf7 22.Bg6+ Ke7 23.Rxf6 Kxf6 24.Rf1+ Ke7 25.Rf7+ Kd6 26.Rxc7 Nxc7 27.Bxe8 Rxe8 28.Qxg7 3.62/14 ]
22.d5
[Fritz 8: 1) 22.Bg6 Qd8 23.Rxf6+ Qxf6 24.Rf1 Qxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Red8 26.d5 2.16/13 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 22.d5 Qe5 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/9 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 22.e4 Ke7 23.e5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Qxe5 25.Qg6 Rf8 26.Rfe1 Qf6 1.75/12 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 22.Be4 Bxe4 23.Nxe4 Qf7 24.d5 Rad8 25.dxe6 Qxe6 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Nxf6 1.69/12 ]
22...Qe5
[Fritz 8: 1) 22...Qb6 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/10 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 22...Qc5 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/11 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 22...Qe5 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/7 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 22...Qf7 23.dxe6 Rxe6 24.Ne4 Bxe4 25.Bxe4 Rxe4 26.Qxe4 Qe8 27.Qf3 Kg8 28.Qd5+ Kh7 29.Rf2 2.75/12 ]
23.dxe6
[Fritz 8: 1) 23.dxe6 Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 23.Rxf6+ gxf6 24.dxe6 Qxe3+ 25.Kh1 Rxe6 26.Qh8+ Kf7 27.Rd7+ Re7 28.Qh5+ Kf8 0.00/13 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 23.Rf5 Qxe3+ 24.Kf1 Nd4 25.Rxf6+ gxf6 26.Bg6 Qf4+ 27.Kg1 Qe3+ 28.Kf1 0.00/13 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 23.Ne4 Ng5 24.Rxf6+ gxf6 25.Qh6+ Kf7 26.Rf1 Rg8 27.Qxf6+ Qxf6 -0.53/13 ]
23...Qxe3+
[Fritz 8: 1) 23...Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 1.84/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 23...Rxe6 24.Rd7 Qxe3+ 25.Kh1 Qh6 26.Qxh6 gxh6 27.Rxb7 Kg8 28.Bf5 Ree8 29.Be4 Bg7 3.44/13 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 23...Bc6 24.Rxf6+ Qxf6 25.Rf1 Qxf1+ 26.Kxf1 Rxe6 27.Bg6 Rf6+ 4.59/13 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 23...Qxe6 24.Rxf6+ Qxf6 25.Rf1 Qxf1+ 26.Kxf1 Re6 27.Bg6 Rf6+ 28.Kg1 4.94/13 ]
24.Kh1 Qxe6
[Fritz 8: 1) 24...Qxe6 25.Bg6 Rad8 26.Rxf6+ 1.84/0 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 24...Rxe6 25.Rd7 Qh6 26.Qxh6 gxh6 27.Rxb7 Kg8 28.Bh7+ Kh8 29.Bf5 Re7 30.Rxe7 3.37/13 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 24...Bxg2+ 25.Kxg2 Qxe6 26.Rxf6+ Qxf6 27.Rf1 Qxf1+ 28.Kxf1 Red8 29.Bg6 Ke7 6.81/13 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 24...Qf3 25.Rxf3 Rxe6 26.Rxf6+ Rxf6 27.Qh8+ Ke7 28.Qxg7+ Rf7 29.Re1+ Kd6 30.Qxf7 Bxg2+ 31.Kxg2 Rg8+ 21.62/12 ]
25.Bg6
[Fritz 8: 1) 25.Bg6 Rad8 26.Rxf6+ Qxf6 27.Qh8+ Ke7 28.Re1+ Kd7 29.Bxe8+ Kc7 30.Qh5 Rd2 1.84/12 ;
Fritz 8: 2) 25.Qh8+ Qg8 26.Qh5 Re7 27.Bg6 Rc8 28.Qh3 Ra8 1.31/12 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 25.h3 Rad8 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Be4 Bc8 28.Qh5 b4 29.Nd5 Qxe4 30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.Qxd8 0.69/12 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 25.Bf5 Qg8 26.Qh5 Re5 27.Rd7 Bc6 28.Rc7 Bd5 29.Nxd5 Qxd5 30.Qh8+ Qg8 0.63/12 ]
Fritz 8: 1) 25...Rad8 26.Rde1 Bxg2+ 27.Kxg2 Qg4+ 28.Kh1 Rxe1 29.Qh8+ Ke7 30.Rxe1+ Kd7 31.Bh5 Qf5 32.Be8+ Kc8 33.Qh5 1.62/12
[Fritz 8: 2) 25...Rac8 26.Rde1 Bxg2+ 27.Kg1 Qg8 28.Qh5 Red8 29.Kxg2 Rc6 30.Rf2 Re6 31.Qc5+ 3.16/12 ;
Fritz 8: 3) 25...Qg8 26.Qh5 Rac8 27.Bxe8 Rxe8 28.Qc5+ Kf7 29.Rd7+ Kg6 30.Rxb7 Re5 31.Qf2 Qe6 5.19/12 ;
Fritz 8: 4) 25...Rab8 26.Qh8+ Ke7 5.47/12 ]
I didnt do all the moves, it would have taken ages, but there is enough there 🙂
Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrow"people dont play like computers full stop."
People dont play like computers full stop. You have to really be into your chess to spot it at higher levels but anyone can see it say when you set you engine to 1200,1300,1400 etc, it just isnt a natural game and anyone can spot this. After that its just a case of how well the person knows engine play to see if they can spot it at higher levels. ...[text shortened]... them through fritz and see what you find. Now take a few hbk9's games and do the same thing.
This is an absurd statement, sorry but im going to bore you with another example.
1.Nf3, d5 2.d4, e6 3.g3, c5 4.Bg2, Nc6 5.0-0, Nf6 6.c4, dxc 7.Ne5, Bd7 8.Na3, cxd 9.Naxc4, Bc5 10.Qb3, 0-0 11.Qxb7, Nxe5 12.Nxe5, Rb8
This is a known posistion, dating from analysis of the game Tal - A.Sokolov, Brussels 1988. An ex-world champion versus a candidates finalist. So a good example of top human opening play ?
Well this posistion was also reached in game 2 of the Kasparov-Deep Blue match, 1996. Due to an error on the part of the Deep Blue team, Deep Blue played the second game without its opening book, it was on its own, out in the cold, like a child lost in the wilderness facing the big bad wolf Kasparov, and it played the exact same moves as a human player, or turn it round, look at it the other way the human played the exact same moves as Deep Blue.
Sorry for refering to earlier points all the time, but i came to this thread late 🙂
forevergreen
I think i already mentioned the fact that the openings booked or not dont really count in this. Just for you i'll explain why, the openings are much less diverse than towards the middle and end games, so of course you will turn up games by computers that follow human play, most online databases have 2 million+ games so finding a computer and a human play the same moves for the opening isnt a challenge for anyone, however the number of human players follow the computer moves for 40 moves+ has to be tiny. Yet there are people who do it on this site in nearly all their games. Even my fritz without its book plays a good queens pawn game. Find a fair few games that the human follows fritz moves through all the way through the middle and end game then you might have a point.
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyI think we're only confirming that proof is well nigh impossible. Everybody can have their suspicions and they can be extremely well founded suspicions but proof is another matter.
Well this posistion was also reached in game 2 of the Kasparov-Deep Blue match, 1996. Due to an error on the part of the Deep Blue team, Deep Blue played the second game without its opening book, it was on its own, out in the cold, like a child lost in the wilderness facing the big bad wolf Kasparov, and it played the exact same moves as a hum ...[text shortened]... or turn it round, look at it the other way the human played the exact same moves as Deep Blue.
For me if someone follows Fritz's moves for a significant number of moves, I'll strongly suspect they are using Fritz to help them. Grandmasters have many ways of controlling games. They may play some moves that a computer would play but over one game (or maybe several) they will make enough different choices for it to be easily noticeable.
That said there are other significant factors that could point the ugly finger of suspicion. If someone moves very rapidly in many concurrent games at a high consistently high standard, you have to suspect there is a computer involved. My best guess is that not even Kasparov could play as well and as quickly as some of the players here with no blunders over an extended period of time.
I believe many players genuinely like to play a sort of correspondence 'advanced chess' as Kasparov has previously advocated. This is where top human players play a match and each player has access to a machine with the latest chess software and engines. Players can still invent their own concepts and plans it is just they can use the computer to cross check the tactics. This results in a much higher standard of play. If a player is serious about this, his moves won't match Fritz's as much as the mechanical Fritz players. Also the stronger the advanced chess player is the fewer moves will match, he will have more confidence in his own conceptions.
One more thing... The notion that there are many top players who can somehow magically tear the best computers to shreds in correspondence play but not over the board is hogwash. I'm sure there are players that can, but not players who do so consistently and in so many concurrent games as most of the players here.
It is generally accepted that computers are used heavily in correspndence play in most organisations whether it is against the rules or not. It is impossible to prove one way or the other. How could it be stopped? Strong players will always be able to disguise use of computers.
Just my 2 cents worth.
John.
Yes you are totally right. People can use compters in such a way that it cant be proven. The only people who we could "prove" cheat on this site are those that stick to fritz mechanically, and there are some of those still on here.
I guess we can only take heart in the fact that anyone who is using computer assistance is getting a hollow win.
🙁
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowYeah,when you give the same version of fritz the same amount of time to analyse,it will come up with the same 3-4 lines.
Which version of fritz ? Its the analysis part of fritz that people use to cheat. So the game will have to be one already played and then have fritz kibiter each move, say for 3 mins ? Yours will be the same as mine, since if i look at the game with fritz 8 today, when i look at it tomorrow with fritz 8 the moves are still the same, i have a coup ...[text shortened]... 47/12 ]
I didnt do all the moves, it would have taken ages, but there is enough there 🙂
My point is that you don't know which version,or which program,the one you suspect cheating uses.Nor do you know how much time he/she/it spends on analysing the positions.It can be anything from 10 seconds to 20 hours.This obviously makes a big difference.
What I'm saying is that it are merely indications,not proof.
About people not playing like a computer,I would agree with that.But,I heard there's an IM,or maybe even GM,out there who plays like a computer.He learned the game only by playing comps(and lots of study,of course),and has developed a computer-like playingstyle.I never got his name though,and anyway,it might be just a tall tale,I dunno.
Sir Lot.
Go to "Engine" "Add Kibiter" then press the + or - keys to add or take away extra variations. You might need to change the move you are analysing for them to appear. Or affer "Add Kobiter" just right click the engine box and add lines from there. 🙂
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowWooo,I didn't know about these functions.Neat 🙂
Go to "Engine" "Add Kibiter" then press the + or - keys to add or take away extra variations. You might need to change the move you are analysing for them to appear. Or affer "Add Kobiter" just right click the engine box and add lines from there. 🙂
I have never used a computer program to play for me.
However, I can easily see why people would do it.
Some people are griefers. Some people just like to piss other people off by any means necessary. It's funny to them.
Some people cheat because they can, to show the flaw in the system. This is rare though I'd imagine.
Some people cheat with computers to test how good their computers really are.
Some people do it as a test, to see if people can figure out if they are a computer or not. This would be analogous to those fully automated bots that go to chat rooms and try to simulate being a real person without any human input.
One huge reason I could see it happening is that some people think that certain kinds of things are cheap, or uncool, or unfair, and "deserve" to be met with computer cheating. For example, I could see someone using a computer against someone who plays Scholar's Mate, or who plays a very boring, symmetrical, drawish game, or who talks a lot of smack, or who they suspect is using a computer against them, or who waits too long between moves, or who refuses to resign but drags out a lost game forever.
I imagine some people are insecure and want the recognition that comes from having a high record.
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyActually the original statement is correct, people simply do not play like computers. If someone's moves match up with any given program there is probably around a 99.9% chance they are using that program to make their moves. And also, opening the same as a computer isnt moving like a computer, anyone can use an opening book that any engine uses, so that is not part of moving. You cant tell someone is using an engine until after they are finished opening.
"people dont play like computers full stop."
This is an absurd statement, sorry but im going to bore you with another example.
1.Nf3, d5 2.d4, e6 3.g3, c5 4.Bg2, Nc6 5.0-0, Nf6 6.c4, dxc 7.Ne5, Bd7 8.Na3, cxd 9.Naxc4, Bc5 10.Qb3, 0-0 11.Qxb7, Nxe5 12.Nxe5, Rb8
This is a known posistion, dating from analysis of the game Tal ...[text shortened]... y for refering to earlier points all the time, but i came to this thread late 🙂
forevergreen
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowWrong, even the same version of any engine can make a different move given the same amount of time to think. Simply go back and replay the move over and over a couple of times and you will see that there are other moves that it is willing to make.
You dont quite understand, at every point in the game there is a lot of variation to pick from, those numbers were just there to show how much. The way you pick the moves in these variations will decide your style of play. In most moves there are say 5 playable choices (more in a lot of positions, when you cover all styles of play), so 5 x 5 is 25 ...[text shortened]... osition to humans they will play different variations from it, depending on their style of play.
I hate naming names but I'm simply tired of playing engines on here, so as soon as I get the list together I'll let this thread know who has used an engine to cheat before. From those who use it in all their games to those who use them to help sometimes and those who use it to help against better players.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21Clearly the time spent on analysis will produce different moves, but the top 3 moves are often stay the same after running an engine for more than 1 min on a position. This is with Kibitering, there is no random factor added to the moves unlike sometimes when you play the engine in a game.
Wrong, even the same version of any engine can make a different move given the same amount of time to think. Simply go back and replay the move over and over a couple of times and you will see that there are other moves that it is willing to make.
I hate naming names but I'm simply tired of playing engines on here, so as soon as I get the list toget ...[text shortened]... mes to those who use them to help sometimes and those who use it to help against better players.