I don't think anyone's capable of 100% accurate endgame play -- there's surely an upper threshold for even the best endgame players that falls well short of 100%.
Much as is done with a Top-3 analysis, players who consistently score above this threshold are either using a tablebase or an engine.
On what basis?
I don't think anyone's capable of 100% accurate endgame play -- there's surely an upper threshold for even the best endgame players that falls well short of 100%.
Much as is done with a Top-3 analysis, players who consistently score above this threshold are either using a tablebase or an engine.
Hm, perhaps this is an issue for the Cheating Forum. It seems to me that, in simple endgame positions, it would be next to impossible to tell the difference.
Yes, in simple endgames, but we're talking about analyzing all positions with seven or less peices.
But how is it unfair to allow tablebases (which would be available to everyone, maintaining a level playing field) in online games, you ask? Because it favors players with weaker endgame skills
Yes, well, we already have opening databases that favor players with weaker openings knowledge, so it seems fair to level the field.
Unfortunately, there's little to no chance of that evening out. Even when opening databases are being used, the player with a better grasp on theory still has an advantage, as he/she will be the one in familiar territory once out of book. However, allowing players to consult opening databases during games does benefit those who don't study openings, or don't study them as intensively, which is why I don't think it's fair to allow them (or any other form of outside assistance, for that matter), as I said earlier in post #13.
But how is it unfair to allow tablebases (which would be available to everyone, maintaining a level playing field) in online games, you ask? Because it favors players with weaker endgame skills
Yes, well, we already have opening databases that favor players with weaker openings knowledge, so it seems fair to level the field.
Unfortunately, there's little to no chance of that evening out. Even when opening databases are being used, the player with a better grasp on theory still has an advantage, as he/she will be the one in familiar territory once out of book.
Even when endgame tablebases are used, the player with a better grasp of endgames will still have an advantage, because he/she will know what kind of endgame positions to aim for in the middlegame.
Well, of course, the analysis for detection would need to be over a statistically significant set of candidate moves to average out false positives due to the kind of streakiness you describe.
I really don't see how people can't tell the difference between using opening bases vs endgame bases.
Opening bases are theory, endgame bases are fact.
I really don't see how people can't tell the difference between using opening bases vs endgame bases.
Opening bases are theory, endgame bases are fact.
The Black's last move loses material by force. This is not theory but fact, and you can find out how by looking into the datebase.
I really don't see how people can't tell the difference between using opening bases vs endgame bases.
Opening bases are theory, endgame bases are fact.
The Black's last move loses material by force. This is not theory but fact, and you can find out how by looking into the datebase.
For every 1 opening blunder you can find in the opening databases, I can find 500 moves which are not blunders. Opening databases lead to positions which are evaluated by engines as better, equal, or worse, which may or may not be true.
Endgames databases tell you if you want to win, play e6 now, else you will draw.
No negotiation, no decision making. No personal preferance that you prefer bishops over knights.
Think of it this way, If you are allowed to use opening databases against Anand, you will surely lose.
If you play out a complicated but even end position against him, and you are allowed to use tablebases, you will surely not lose.
What's the difference between using an endgame encyclopedia that just so happened to print the pertinent 6 piece (not 7 piece) tablebase info as opposed to use a tablebase?
For me, the distinction is one of the practicalities of publishing known (ossified) information. If I had unlimited wealth (and an equal amount of a lack of sense) I could publish the Nalimov tablebase, and then it would be legal here.
That doesn't make sense.
You would need a loooot of trees to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
"Another drawback is that tablebases require a lot of memory to store the many thousands of positions. The Nalimov tablebases, which use special-purpose compression technique, require 7.05 GB of hard disk space for all five-piece endings. The six-piece endings require approximately 1.2 terabytes.[28][29] Nalimov seven-piece tablebases require more hard drive storage capacity and RAM to operate than will be practical to use for the foreseeable future."
I really don't see how people can't tell the difference between using opening bases vs endgame bases.
Opening bases are theory, endgame bases are fact.
The Black's last move loses material by force. This is not theory but fact, and you can find out how by looking into the datebase.
For every 1 opening blunder you can find in the opening databases, I can find 500 moves which are not blunders. Opening databases lead to positions which are evaluated by engines as better, equal, or worse, which may or may not be true.
Endgames databases tell you if you want to win, play e6 now, else you will draw.
No negotiation, no decision making. No personal preferance that you prefer bishops over knights.
Think of it this way, If you are allowed to use opening databases against Anand, you will surely lose.
If you play out a complicated but even end position against him, and you are allowed to use tablebases, you will surely not lose.
Endgames with 7 or less pieces on the board (7 pieces both sides together, counting pawns) are not really the kind of complex endgames in which great endgame players like Kramnik thrive in, and where they often beat weaker GMs. These are solved endgames that are rarely even reached at top level.
If I played Anand, I would surely be lost much before I reached an endgame with 7 pieces, or at least so far down on material that the tablebase wouldn't be any help.
tablebases will (probably) kill chess (as we know it) eventually(not so soon though). 
Hah, someone who thinks 6 piece positions are all simple.
Boy, are you in for a surprise...
Hah, someone who thinks 6 piece positions are all simple.
Boy, are you in for a surprise...
"6 pieces" includes Kings and pawns. It could mean a King and two pawns each, or a King, Rook, and 1 pawn each. These are not complex endgames that require talent and understanding, only book knowledge.
Hah, someone who thinks 6 piece positions are all simple.
Boy, are you in for a surprise...
"6 pieces" includes Kings and pawns. It could mean a King and two pawns each, or a king, Rook, and 1 pawn each. These are not complex endgames that require talent and understanding, only book knowledge.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/mate-in-782
What's the difference between using an endgame encyclopedia that just so happened to print the pertinent 6 piece (not 7 piece) tablebase info as opposed to use a tablebase?
For me, the distinction is one of the practicalities of publishing known (ossified) information. If I had unlimited wealth (and an equal amount of a lack of sense) I could publish the Nalimov tablebase, and then it would be legal here.
That doesn't make sense.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Publishing a complete tablebase is simply not practicle, either from an actual publication or from an ease of use perspective, and the fact is that we should be looking at the spirit of the rule anyway as opposed to the letter of it.
This one is 5 pieces only. 
I'm curious if GMs could win in 40% of all positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_bishop_versus_rook_endgame
How do you detect the use of endgame tablebase, as opposed to accurate endgame play ?