Wardy56 wrote:
interesting but is it at all possible to beat these things and i think it should be possible to draw with them especially if you are really good
yes I agree,I don't think this will work
I have the Solution to stop cheating in Live Chess!
Sort:
On another chess site I played a blitz five minute game against a 2350 and lost on time after fifty moves, my opponent had used only four seconds, now that's what I call blitz.
>:)
I wouldnt ban cheaters. Id hit em where it hurts...there fragile under fed ego. I would let them stay members, and no matter who they play, no matter the rating difference, there rating goes up or down 1 point.
They will crack and run screaming. Banning them simply allows them to go to another site for a ego stroke.
Newbie1995 wrote:
Why don't you all be helpful instead of act like a bunch of know-it-all socialists
Why are so many Americans paranoid about "Socialists"?
I'm afraid McCarthyism and the cold war left an indelible stain. You may have noticed that the label "terrorist" occasionally gets bandied about in the same manner although most are sensitive enough to avoid use of the work "Nazi" (most).
At the end of the day, some people just have a shallow well to draw from when it comes to expressing the reasons they object to an individual's statements or position and sometimes they don't even know what exactly it is that they're pulling out of that well.
Referring back to the OP:
I take the view that anyone consistently using an engine will quickly rise to the top of the ratings and then their games will be subject to the scrutiny of the in-house cheat detection methods, which will soon determine that they are cheating. The only people that really need close scrutiny are those at the upper levels of the ratings lists. And the methods currently in place can clearly deal with them well enough.
I think that's how important the issue is. Let's keep matters in proportion and keep this site FUN!
I think this is a great idea, with a few added conditions:
1) Rating does not change for the player who got beat by cheat squad member
2) If a titled player beats the engine, he/she is off the hook
chessoholicalien wrote:
I take the view that anyone consistently using an engine will quickly rise to the top of the ratings and then their games will be subject to the scrutiny of the in-house cheat detection methods, which will soon determine that they are cheating. The only people that really need close scrutiny are those at the upper levels of the ratings lists. And the methods currently in place can clearly deal with them well enough.
How do you know for sure about the efficiency of the cheating detection methods for this site?
How you can possibly know if there is even a regular system in place?
Just because they publish some names on a list from time to time it doesn't mean anything on the real and greater picture.
Some people on the Cheating Forum are highly suspicious that this site has no methodology, financial or human resources to deal with the cheating problem here...
well the concept has some merit......chess.com is a business and your iidea would tie up staff and time, apparently the system they have works well, if it ain't broken don't fix it!!! Just thinking outloud
There's one problem, what if you're just good? What if in a long game you drew with some luck or if you won because of a good opening? These computers aren't invincible, you know.
Actually, they pretty much are these days.
Sep 18, 2009
0
#234
General-Lee wrote:
There's one problem, what if you're just good? What if in a long game you drew with some luck or if you won because of a good opening? These computers aren't invincible, you know.
Lets be clear. Luck would have nothing to do with beating a program like fritz or rybka.
Look at this fairly recent article from 2008
Okay, it wasn't just any human, but rather Grandmaster Vadim Milov, who at a hefty 2705 is the highest-rated player to play a match against computer program Rybka. Also, it wasn't a match on even terms - Milov took some handicaps that made the match just a bit more fair.
For the first two games of the match, there was only the smallest of handicaps - Rybka played black in both games, instead of switching colors with Milov. Still, Rybka scored 1.5 out of 2 in these even games with the black pieces. Milov then scored 1.5/2 in the next phase of the match, where Rybka gave the classic "pawn and move" handicap - playing black and removing the pawn on f7 before the start of the game.
The second half of the match was played with odds of the exchange: Rybka played white without the a1 rook, while Milov was black without the b8 knight. Milov won one of the four games, while the rest ended in draws. The final score was narrowly in Milov's favor: 4.5-3.5.
What does this mean for the future of human-computer matches? We're likely to see many more where human grandmasters take small-to-moderate handicaps in order to keep things competitive, and humans will certainly have fair chances to win those matches, no matter how good the computers get. On the other hand, is it still possible for a human to challenge Rybka or another top computer program in an even match? Most would say it's doubtful that the humans can hang in there, but Milov thinks he'd have a chance against Rybka - provided he could have white every game and the financial incentives were large enough to make extensive preparation worthwhile. This might be an overly optimistic assessment, but I doubt we've seen the last of human-computer matches on even terms.
Let me know your thoughts: do you think we'll ever see a top human play a top computer to at least a draw in a match again?
God oh mighty, can we have one day without a fourm on cheating???