Originally posted by ZumdahlCapital letters are your friend. Use them after the dot thing.
it is a known fact that computers are weak in endgames becasue they cant analyze positionally.. do u know what the horizon affect is? i doubt it. it is of course obvious 5 v 4 pawns and simplistic endgames such as that. the whoel manner in which u are trying to demean me jus shows me that you do not have much chess experience yourself. ur examples that are g ...[text shortened]... as i have done it before on icc. try to keep the posts civil man, this is not about me and you.
"Suppose that your program searches to a depth of 8-ply, and that it discovers to its horror that the opponent will capture its queen at ply 6. Left to its own devices, the program will then proceed to throw its bishops to the wolves so that it will delay the queen capture to ply 10, which it can't see because its search ends at ply 8. From the program's point of view, the queen is "saved", because the capture is no longer visible... But it has lost a bishop, and the queen capture reappears during the next move's search. "
The horizon effect is always present in a program's analysis unless it can see the resolution of the game in it's favour. It is in fact more evident in early to mid game than it is in the endgame.
The reason computers play superior endgame chess is their ability to see a resolution. If the computer calculates say 25 ply (25 half moves, easy to do in some endgames) and after that finds itself in a tablebase that is winning then it can play perfect chess. It will not lose against any defence. The position at which this occurs depends on the depth of search, tablebases used and the position. However it can be from very complex positions.
Here it is nice and simple. Computers get better in the endgame. They are useless in the opening. Turn off your opening book and see what Fritz comes up with after any standard opening moves (say 1. e4 c5 or 1. d4 d5).
I beg your pardon for my English, but I understand that one chess player can play on RHP only if he don't understand chess and lose a piece every three moves?
If someone play a very good game is automatically labeled YOU ARE A COMPUTER yoy are a cheater .........
The weak player don't understand the difference !!!
I'M NOT A CHAMPION , IT'S SURE !! Only a Master but in my chesslive I play ( blitz 15, 5 or 3 minutes games ) that are perfect !!! and sometime the engines find that my moves are better than their.
With 3 day move I believe that a strong (tournament "board"😉 player
is able to play games good enough for an engine.
So I write for the last time and say STOP this discussion or a lot of people leave RHP.
I hate the condition that I see a positional sacrifice I'm a computer because weak player judge it impossible to see.
Now you can do what you want but you and all other are out of the world.
STOP engines use it's IMPOSSIBLE.
I'm sorry too......but this question of police is worse!!!
Originally posted by El BrutoYou are a great player and a good man.
I beg your pardon for my English, but I understand that one chess player can play on RHP only if he don't understand chess and lose a piece every three moves?
If someone play a very good game is automatically labeled YOU ARE A COMPUTER yoy are a cheater .........
The weak player don't understand the difference !!!
I'M NOT A CHAMPION , IT'S SURE ...[text shortened]... ngines use it's IMPOSSIBLE.
I'm sorry too......but this question of police is worse!!!
You are also correct that this thread could be a threat to the site:
Let us all put our toys back in the pram and forget the cheat police. People such as Trackhead and Greyeyesofsorrow are already well known to many players on RHP, and have been too opinionated and arrogant in the past, to have the required trust to act as Russ/Chris's deputies:
IMHO-
1. the only fully worthy volunteers in the list (Including myself)are
Zumbahl - David Tebb - Mephisto2
The others all lack merit in some areas
2. To continue with this idea of a cheat police, will cause many more problems than continuing as we are. At the end of the day, we all know the obvious cheats, and they will always be the biggest losers. Sure I might lose a few rating points each year to an engine, but for me it would be much worse to lose the opportunity to play truly awesome players, who will doubtless leave as the witch hunt mentality takes grip.
p.s.
It is jolly poor form on an international site to nitpick the grammar, spelling or punctuation of a post, considering that the author may well be using their second or third language to communicate
Originally posted by El BrutoThat's a good point. I think that that is what the idea of the "cheat police" is to avoid, so that enough people are in the police that the chances of someone unfairly being labelled a cheat is lowered.
I beg your pardon for my English, but I understand that one chess player can play on RHP only if he don't understand chess and lose a piece every three moves?
If someone play a very good game is automatically labeled YOU ARE A COMPUTER yoy are a cheater .........
Because to even unfairly label a single person as a cheat would be a failure of the entire system.
IMO thought the current situation is not good. You have victimisation of a few players where they are being labelled as cheats and there is no official site line as to what should be done about it to show one way or the other. That sort of thing clearly cannot be allowed to continue.
Originally posted by SirUlrichIf I'm not wrong this thread has been started by the site admins.......
You are also correct that this thread could be a threat to the site:
Let us all put our toys back in the pram and forget the cheat police.
Why battling cheaters (like all other sites already do) should be considered a threat to the site?
If accused players like to act like spoilt children and throw away their toys,let'em go.
Originally posted by RavelloAccused players or do you mean guilty players? -My fear is that the two will become as one.
If I'm not wrong this thread has been started by the site admins.......
Why battling cheaters ([b]like all other sites already do) should be considered a threat to the site?
If accused players like to act like spoilt children and throw away their toys,let'em go.[/b]
I am aware that Russ wanted respected players only - I fear that this may not be the case, I also believe that the issue of cheating is overstated. I am sure that I have played a few games against Fritz on here just as I have probably battled against Chessbase too,I see no difference, but the other 95% of my games are what make the site special and rewarding.
My final point in this thread is that it always makes me chuckle a little, despair a little and take another look at government, when people believe that because something is initially suggested by a site admin. it must be the right way forward. I suppose I am more of a free thinker than that :-)
Originally posted by SirUlrichFreethink whatever you want,I will always do whatever I can against frauds on the site.
My final point in this thread is that it always makes me chuckle a little, despair a little and take another look at government, when people believe that because something is initially suggested by a site admin. it must be the right way forward. I suppose I am more of a free thinker than that :-) [/b]
The worst thing to do is ignoring that there is a problem to deal with.
It would be great to have more than the 3 of those top players thralling through people's games that have been accused of cheating. Unfortunately, I don't see that as being the case.
The way I'd see the cheat police working would be that somebody would be accused. The accused identity would only be disclosed to the cheat police. An investigation would then be initiated if the accusation is thought to have any substance. This is where the lesser beings on the cheat police would come into it. They would do all the donkey work in putting a few of the accused games through engines. Then, the results of this analysis would be posted to the cheat police's forum and this is where the worthy members of the cheat police would come into it. They would analyse the reasons behind the matchups. As has been shown, percentage matchup can be high despite non engine use, so experienced strong players would be required for this part. Then, their thoughts would be posted to the cheat police forum and discussed by all members of the police and a course of action would be decided upon. Weaker players will also be needed for these discussions cos otherwise, the lower rated people might think that it is some kind of elitest police force in place. So, the cheat police will definitely have to be quite large and varied.
As opposed to this cheat police promoting witch hunts, I feel it would do completely the opposite. All accusations would be private. A clear policy on cheating would be in place, which should discourage cheats and public accusations. Take a look at the uchess forums to see what happens in a forum which doesn't have a clear policy on cheating accusations.
This is a highly contentious issue at the moment, because it is a massively new idea, and some people are going to get disillusioned with all the talk about cheating, and some might leave due to this. Others might leave because they don't want to be found out. However, I believe that once the cheat police has been in place for a while, ALL talk of cheats will have disappeared from the forums. And hopefully, the occurrances of computer players will become a smaller phenomenon.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakVery well put,I agree 100%.
It would be great to have more than the 3 of those top players thralling through people's games that have been accused of cheating. Unfortunately, I don't see that as being the case.
The way I'd see the cheat police working would be that somebody would be accused. The accused identity would only be disclosed to the cheat police. An investigation wo ...[text shortened]... rums. And hopefully, the occurrances of computer players will become a smaller phenomenon.
D
Once the cheat police will take place,accusations will be addressed to them and the forum will be free for other things,as it has always been.
Found this thread when I noticed the issue of computers being mentioned in a few of the profiles I looked up.
I am new to this site, but it seems to me that there is a storm brewing that could damage the good thing that is going on here.
There is obviously a lot of passion to be had on this subject but from scanning the posts I can not see a workable proposal yet. This kangaroo court idea seems fraught with problems.
Perhaps an answer might present itself in time and a softer, gradual change may be a more prudent way to proceed until it does.
A small start may be to state what is and is not considered as sporting behaviour on prominent pages.
Is using any sort of artificial aid, for example books on openings considered bad form? Are all games to be played under club rules? I lay all my games out on chessboards all over my study or on travel chess sets and then play out the games again and again sometime looking up my library for inspiration and I have just brought a few chess programs as I get back into the game (looks around guiltily), it is after all a correspondence chess site or should one only think about the game when one is in front of the screen?
What is the difference between paper and silicon? Are chess computers really that scary? I presume that someone must have played a computer against someone like Ironman31 at some point and he must have beaten it for him to only to loose one game out of 500, they are therefore not unbeatable.
Is not the internet all about identity deception and fantasy, who cares if some attention seeker wishes to act as a manual interface for a silicon brain to feel good about himself?
Well obviously quite a few people do so how about the following proposals:-
1. A statement of what is considered as good form at various points around the site particularly near tournament related screens.
2. A facility to self declare artificial aids by tick boxes on game challenges. I will be using a chess book, computer, post game analysis system, my Uncle Charlie or whatever so people have the opportunity of knowing what they are up against.
This in the short term will bring the matter to everyone’s attention, not just those who go digging through the forums and reinforce the trust aspect (a kind of honesty box).
If this does not go far enough for those who are baying for blood and justice a simple statement like this might help:-
Tournament games are randomly sampled for use of computer programs by either player. Computers have a move profile that is easy to detect. If you are found to have used a computer without declaring it and won the game in question the result may be reversed and other games you have participated in will also be analysed.
Or this
If you suspect you opponent may be using a computer in a tournament then please email the game ID to XXXX after you have lost it. (Bit suspect this one though, those that don’t like to loose may overload the address).
Neither of these statements have to 100% true, just enough to make people think twice, many will not know whether this can be done or not, but rather then risk their fantasy life being exposed will either stop using computers as much or sadly leave the site.
These are not solutions to the problem, just adjustments to the tone of the site, so the step from libertarianism to a secret police state is slow and controlled with the ability to step back if it all goes pear shaped.
It may be that the moderators may not be required as this will do the trick, but if it doesn’t they can be made a reality unexpectedly after all no-one should expect the Red hot pawn inquisition!
As I am new I will now shut up and listen.
😛😀
Originally posted by ZumdahlOk your comment at the end of your first statement was the first nasty one made. So dont try and back out of it.
it is a known fact that computers are weak in endgames becasue they cant analyze positionally.. do u know what the horizon affect is? i doubt it. it is of course obvious 5 v 4 pawns and simplistic endgames such as that. the whoel manner in ...[text shortened]... cc. try to keep the posts civil man, this is not about me and you.
Just forget ply for a start. As for do I know what the horizon effect is, Feviel and myself have been talking about it for most of our game.
Now look it up and retract your statement or I will drag it off the chessbase website. Endgame databases cover EVERY POSITION they are created for. The only reason we can do this is because endgames can be worked out by forced thinking alone.
As for ply, I dont know what engine you are using but turn the endgame databases off, drop 4 paws on one side and 3 on the other with kings on the board and leave fritz to look at it for an hour and it has no problem working out the forced mate in the 40 odd moves.
If people are going to limit their engines to 4 ply then theres no way we are going to catch them because they would play like JW did at the start.
Compters think better with less material on the board, iv already posted this but I can prove it as well.
As for which of us knows endgames better, its easy to get dragged into a spite arugement, but I assure you no matter how complex the endgame is I can generally tell who is going to win.
Think about it, the only reason why people can write books on certain openings and certain endgames is because the principles and correct variations in the two are limited. Endgames with rooks are considerd some of the most complex, yet book after book tell you how to play them and understand them and reduce them to principles.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowZumdahl was correct 5 years ago, but computers play endgames superbly now. I mentioned this elsewhere, but I have played middlegames that are 'correct' according to Fritz (I'm not saying Fritz picks the best moves, but all my choices were in its top three candidates and contained no tactical blunders). I've never played an endgame that matches or is better than Frit's suggestions, and neither have any of my opponents (including complex endgame wins against me by GM's Pavel Blatny, Alex Wojtkiewicz, Zurab Stura) - engines are far more accurate nowadays than anyone except super GM's, who can occasionally still identify the elements of complex endgames that machines can't (e.g. Shirov's very famous Bh3 move, or Karpov's Ng1; there are plenty more similar ideas that have been played by the top 20 in the world that would never be found by an engine.)
Ok your comment at the end of your first statement was the first nasty one made. So dont try and back out of it.
Just forget ply for a start. As for do I know what the horizon effect is, Feviel and myself have been talking about it for most of our game.
Now look it up and retract your statement or I will drag it off the chessbase website. ...[text shortened]... but I assure you no matter how complex the endgame is I can generally tell who is going to win.