And I don't understand it because it makes no sense, bud ;)
How can people think they can detect engine use?
Sort:
Inyustisia wrote:
so how could you use that to catch people if you don't know their skillsets and how much effort they are putting in... or how do you even determine how difficult a position is
If you use an inconsistant amount of effort it will still show up as sandbagging.
Part of the problem is that, people are stuck in the mindset of measuring performance with only Elo. You have to look at things' intrinsic value, instead of comparing it to everything else. If it isn't true to itself, it is contrary...
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
If you use an inconsistant amount of effort it will still show up as sandbagging.
Part of the problem is that, people are stuck in the mindset of measuring performance with only Elo. You have to look at things' intrinsic value, instead of comparing it to everything else. If it isn't true to itself, it is contrary...
So your proposition is that, instead of measuring a player's skill level with ELO, you will instead measure the intrinsic value of things, instead of comparing them to everything else. Sounds cool man, let me know when you get that done... *facepalm*
Spiker439 wrote:
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
(Edited for clarity)
I do understand how to measure it...
it has nothing to do with finding the right plan, or using Elo ( an estimate, based on other estimates, always in flux and at best, another estimate)
Each chess position requires a particular amount of skill to find the best move in. You could possess that skill but, have any number of different ratings, based on various factors. People get confused between the effort it takes to solve a position and the skill level it takes.
An example anology... A 200lb man might have to give it a 100% effort to dead lift 500lbs but a 300lb man might only need to exert 75% of the force he is capable of exerting. In either case, it still takes over 500lbs of force to over come gravity...
This straight up just makes no sense whatsoever. It assumes that each chess position has some kind of requisite skill level in order to solve it. This of course is a trivialization and oversimplification of the myriad different factors that go into chess play and decisions.
You are basing this idea on what everyone else has played and how they performed with it, instead of looking at the inherent difficulty of solving a chess position, without any knowledge. If you gain more understanding that causes an increase in chess skill, the problem may get easier for you to solve. That doesn't happen because the inherent difficulty of the problem was decreased, it was because your skills increased.
Spiker439 wrote:
And I don't understand it because it makes no sense, bud ;)
It is always easier to point the finger, assuming you are right. I don't expect you to understand. I can see why some people wouldn't want to and want to make sure certain other people think it makes no sense. It really makes no nevermind in the end...
Spiker439 wrote:
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
If you use an inconsistant amount of effort it will still show up as sandbagging.
Part of the problem is that, people are stuck in the mindset of measuring performance with only Elo. You have to look at things' intrinsic value, instead of comparing it to everything else. If it isn't true to itself, it is contrary...
So your proposition is that, instead of measuring a player's skill level with ELO, you will instead measure the intrinsic value of things, instead of comparing them to everything else. Sounds cool man, let me know when you get that done... *facepalm*
It is more in depth but, some things are worth the wait...
so i am arguably sandbagging in my correspondence games with the low amount of effort i put in most of them :p
what are the good points of t3-methodology? it's easy for anyone to reproduce and it's clear and objective, so it gives no room for arguing with its results. i don't see any of that with your method
To be honest with you I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're even talking about. Some clarity in writing would go a long way. At any rate, it seems as if you're trying to measure the intrinsic difficulty of a chess problem instead of the strength of a player, and then extrapolate the "performance level" of a player by which of the intrinsically difficult problems they can solve, or not.
My facepalm comment clearly went way over your head so let me explain - How in the world are you going to measure the intrinsic difficulty of a chess problem? That's actually a non-sensical notion... chess problems are only difficult, or easy, to or for a chess player. There is literally no intrinsic difficulty, there is only relational difficulty.
So, as I mentioned, your concept just makes literally no sense whatsoever. I don't mean to insult you here, I'm just saying that your position on this topic is logically fallacious.
Simple concept, you can only accurately measure something from something that is immutable and consistantly true to itself. Using Elo's, computer evaluations, etc, are in a state of flux, from various factors. The inherent difficulty of the chess positions themselves are always constant.
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
Simple concept, you can only accurately measure something from something that is immutable and consistantly true to itself. Using Elo's, computer evaluations, etc, are in a state of flux, from various factors. The inherent difficulty of the chess positions themselves are always constant.
and the key question is how is the inherent difficulty of a position measurable
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
Simple concept, you can only accurately measure something from something that is immutable and consistantly true to itself. Using Elo's, computer evaluations, etc, are in a state of flux, from various factors. The inherent difficulty of the chess positions themselves are always constant.
Oh cool, let me call Quantum Physics and let it know that you've rebuked its existence. Thanks for clearing that up bro.
Spiker439 wrote:
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
Simple concept, you can only accurately measure something from something that is immutable and consistantly true to itself. Using Elo's, computer evaluations, etc, are in a state of flux, from various factors. The inherent difficulty of the chess positions themselves are always constant.
Oh cool, let me call Quantum Physics and let it know that you've rebuked its existence. Thanks for clearing that up bro.
You can try twisting it into something else but, the old saying applies and wont change, regardless of your rhetoric... it is what it is....
Inyustisia wrote:
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
Simple concept, you can only accurately measure something from something that is immutable and consistantly true to itself. Using Elo's, computer evaluations, etc, are in a state of flux, from various factors. The inherent difficulty of the chess positions themselves are always constant.
and the key question is how is the inherent difficulty of a position measurable
May I PM you a few things to consider ?
sure. bonus question: how do you measure the inherent difficulty of a position against the skillsets of a player
I extended a reductio ad absurdum in your direction. It went over your head. I give up.
I have a 100% foolproof way to detect engine use. If I lose, they were using an engine.
Spiker439 wrote:
I extended a reductio ad absurdum in your direction. It went over your head. I give up.
I understood. The problem is, some people don't like it when I won't find humor in their puns. In fact, I find if you do, you tend to lose credibility in your assertions but, this is what went over your head, the fact I am already keenly aware of this sort of joke...
A reductio ad absurdum is not a joke, nor a pun. It is me logically destroying your argument. Google it, you troglodite.
Not that you actually have an argument - your position hinges on the assertion that chess positions have inherent difficulty, which I've shown beyond a doubt is fallacious. I already won, you don't realize it, so now I give up.
Spiker439 wrote:
A reductio ad absurdum is not a joke, nor a pun. It is me logically destroying your argument. Google it, you troglodite.
Not that you actually have an argument - your position hinges on the assertion that chess positions have inherent difficulty, which I've shown beyond a doubt is fallacious. I already won, you don't realize it, so now I give up.
It was a joke in my eyes, here's how...
your attempt at tearing down my idea is joke, but that went over your head too. It is funny, to me though that, I understand your innuendos but, you fail to understand mind...
no need to look anything up
(Edited for clarity)
I do understand how to measure it...
it has nothing to do with finding the right plan, or using Elo ( an estimate, based on other estimates, always in flux and at best, another estimate)
Each chess position requires a particular amount of skill to find the best move in. You could possess that skill but, have any number of different ratings, based on various factors. People get confused between the effort it takes to solve a position and the skill level it takes.
An example anology... A 200lb man might have to give it a 100% effort to dead lift 500lbs but a 300lb man might only need to exert 75% of the force he is capable of exerting. In either case, it still takes over 500lbs of force to over come gravity...
This straight up just makes no sense whatsoever.
That is because you don't understand it...