Computer people?

Well, you know, that guy next door who always mows his lawn on Saturdays.

You guessed it.

And that woman in the supermarket always chewing gum. Well ... yep, another.

And then there is that guy who posts on chess sites. As mechanical as they come, that one.

If they do use such computerized players, I propose they'd also use computerized forum trolls to distract us from our inverstigation of such scandals. *Points at Esquilax1*

In the case of proving/disproving players are occasionally chess.com computers in disguise, one would first need to differentiate between the claims "chess.com has never used computers in such a way," and "chess.com never uses computers in such a way." For it IS theoretically possible to prove they never have. But for any human action, due to the nature of choice, we can never prove it won't happen until it becomes impossible. And as mebelalalana (hopefully I didn't add or remove any "la's") pointed out, "it is totally possible . . ." This is sufficient proof, then, that no such proof can currently exists towards or against the existence of such computerized players in the near future.

Clearly, it's very possible...

http://youtu.be/PW1vMXHJdnM

In the words of a wise man I once met on a journey to enlightenment, "ownt."

I asked if you would accept a random sampling of 100 chess.com members as proof. That's a yes or no question for which you have the full power to say yes, no, maybe, I don't understand the question, and so on. The answer is up to you.

I never implied you said anything.

I am not implying that chess.com never uses computers to reduce matching time. I'm boldly declaring they don't. And I'm asking:

If I took a random sampling of 100 chess.com members, would you accept it as proof?

That is just someone cheating, and clearly not what this thread is about.

And what about the moves? I mean sure, I ain't a great player, nor have I played thousands of games, but I sure as hell can tell the differences between computer and human players already. Anyway, how would it work?
Are there these "computer accounts" with some random name that some guy edits, make them have friends, join clubs, start or comment threads, etc. to create the perfect illusion?
That seems so ridiculous, now, doesn't it.

There might be a chess player on here that doesn't speak, doesn't start threads or make comments, and hasn't joined clubs. I'm pretty sure some people like that exist out of the millions who join this site. Those would be some who you would have to look into deeper.

I understand your original post. You are saying that there might be chess.com players that are actually bots placed by chess.com to make matchups go faster. You're saying that I can't possibly say that every player that's ever played is not a bot. 

I'm asking if you'd accept a sampling of 100 players as proof. If not that, I'd ask 1000. Then if not that I'd ask if you would accept any number short of all the players on chess.com.

While I have not put any words in your mouth, I suspect from your irrational responses that you would not accept any sample short of every member on chess.com. 

That's one possibility. The other is you lack clarity....

I've known plenty of 14 year olds who communicate clearly, infer correctly (though I recognize many 14 year olds fault there), and resolve a conversation without resorting to pictures that say two words instead of a thousand (though I'm being somewhat disingenious about the brevity of her images' messages to make a "witty point").

I haven't said anything harmful, and while she may be 14 she's obviously very confident in herself, regardless the accuracy of my judgment. She'll be fine....

edit: p.s. And correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment toward her is more biting....

Still, what about the moves? Is there finally a computer program that plays like a human? Even on the lowest settings of the most primitive engines you can easily tell computer moves from normal ones.

I have met a player I suspected of using a program. This was not due to his play style, but due to the fact that his typing speed was impossibly quick and his comments were repetitive. Furthermore, he wouldn't acknowledge a word I said. He would simply disregard me and state irrelevant comments. Perhaps he suffered from Hyperfingerretardation, but idk...

That is something to look into, but the amount of work one would have to put in to check all of those variables is enough that I respect the opinion of one who thinks a computer player might exist. I have never thought of it before (or not much anyway) and so I recognize that I've never conciously looked at all those variables in a bunch of users.

But from what I have noticed, my intuition says the chances are slim. So slim in fact that I'm confident enough to say chess.com isn't using computers. It's more than I can say for online poker sites I use. 

It's not a question of people using programs, but chess.com placing computers in place of human players so search times are not long.

This would make sense in a place that didn't have 10,000 players on at any one time, but not here where the social footprint and complete playing record leave a pretty easy trail to follow....

Yahoo! Chess (RIP), and funorb.com chess (RIP) would need such a system, and they obviously never did that. Chess.com wouldn't, and I wager it's pretty evident they wouldn't want to....

As you mature, you'll be surprised at what men get away with....

Lmao this thread is both informative and entertaining! Good comeback, mebelalalana. I'm looking forward to seeing his reply. *Grabs popcorn*

Oh I understand the question entirely. I do apologize for my unclear point. I was implying that perhaps this "person" I was playing was one of these chess.com bots we've been discussing. I figure that would explain, at least, the program-like behavior.