Live chess "computer" coverup EXPOSED

Sort:
Avatar of Sun-Tzu09

I and many others have long questioned whether the "Easy," "Medium," and "Hard" engines available to play in live chess are really engines after all, but only now is there undeniable proof that at least one such player is being controlled by a human.

Tonight, after a losing streak of 11 games against the "Hard" computer, I was beginning to have hope in one game, a Caro-Kann as black. When my opponent began to move its king back and forth, I proudly offered a draw, but it refused - thrice - and just continued to shuffle its pieces around, while I moved a rook back and forth. This went on for several minutes. See the game to observe how the "computer" chose to deal me the fatal sucker punch just as it KNEW that my focus had been destroyed by the pointless maneuvers:

www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1241758521

This is clearly the work of human being with an acute ability to exploit his/her opponent's psychology. While at the end of the match I snuck in 1 win to compensate for my 16 losses, I demand, on behalf of the chess.com community, that each of the computers be subjected to a Turing test so the truth may come out once and for all.

Avatar of notmtwain

 

I and many others have long questioned whether the "Easy," "Medium," and "Hard" engines available to play in live chess are really engines after all, but only now is there undeniable proof that at least one such player is being controlled by a human.

Tonight, after a losing streak of 11 games against the "Hard" computer, I was beginning to have hope in one game, a Caro-Kann as black. When my opponent began to move its king back and forth, I proudly offered a draw, but it refused - thrice - and just continued to shuffle its pieces around, while I moved a rook back and forth. This went on for several minutes. See the game to observe how the "computer" chose to deal me the fatal sucker punch just as it KNEW that my focus had been destroyed by the pointless maneuvers:

www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1241758521

This is clearly the work of human being with an acute ability to exploit his/her opponent's psychology. While at the end of the match I snuck in 1 win to compensate for my 16 losses, I demand, on behalf of the chess.com community, that each of the computers be subjected to a Turing test so the truth may come out once and for all.

 
 
 

That's pretty funny.

It is possible that it was programmed to play what it judged to be sub-optimal moves to avoid a draw after 49 moves had passed without a pawn move or capture. That's why it had to try 71 h3 (since the last pawn move was 21..a4).

The question is- how could you keep playing that game? Nothing was happening. At what point would you have considered trying something?

Avatar of Play2Lose

Maybe it didn't see a way to make progress, but through the repetition it had longer to analyse the position and came up with h4 Ng5?

Avatar of Sun-Tzu09

What I was thinking, is that it declined to draw because it felt that I wouldn't have to make as many mistakes as it would for the position to collapse; with less then perfect play, it has the advantage?

Avatar of fuzzbug

Why would Chess.com have a person posing as a computer?

Avatar of pfren
[COMMENT DELETED]
Avatar of Sun-Tzu09

Thanks! I played a4 hoping to close the position entirely and cause a draw, but can see why it is bad better now.

Avatar of Sun-Tzu09

Why would Chess.com have a person posing as a computer?


To do research for the NWO!

In reality, I was jokingly reversing the accusations against human players secretly using engines. But of course I support the efforts to stop that kind of cheating.