I think the fundamental problem is this notion of saying someone cheated because they played the 'top move'. There is no definition of 'top move'. What does that mean? The computer engine regularly changes its top moves, so its simply an arbitrary and meaningless concept. Its like a cop pulling you over for going "too fast", without any concrete objective definition of what "too fast" actually is.
It would make more sense to run a comparative analysis at a specific depth, say 13, and then you could say that the average GM plays moves which correspond with the computer at a frequency of X%.
Ivanov speaks out!
Sort:
I think the fundamental problem is you taking the cheater's side.
Crazychessplaya wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is you taking the cheater's side.
The burden of proof is upon the accuser, that's a pretty basic concept of jurisprudence.
And you think there's not enough proof? I wonder what your agenda is. Maybe you'd like chess.com to drop its policy of banning cheaters?
Wow 199 comments. A thread likes this gets shut down in like 20 minutes when they mention the c word and a username is named.
This should be interesting as poeple here seem to always get their way and the person does something they have been waiting for to happen. It takes about on average of 4-6 months. Or they drive them into doing the thing they said they did not do at all.
Dude, even FIDE doesn't think there is enough proof.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#168
royalbishop wrote:
Wow 199 comments. A thread likes this gets shut down in like 20 minutes when they mention the c word and a username is named.
I don't think Ivanov is a member on this site, is he?
Although indeed, it is surprising that the thread did not get locked, with an admonition to move it to a more appropriate place.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#169
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Dude, even FIDE doesn't think there is enough proof.
when does FIDE ever care ?
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Dude, even FIDE doesn't think there is enough proof.
Do you have a statement by FIDE to that effect, or are you just making this up?
Moses2792796 wrote:
So you think a 2200 player, who's level of play has often been quite poor, having a 100% matchup rate with Houdini outside of the opening book is a coincidence?
No, I think the notion of having a 100% matchup rate with Houdini is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing. Its a meaningless concept. What defines a "matchup"? Besides, the guy lost two of the games in that tournament, and had two draws, so he hardly had a '100% matchup rate'.
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Moses2792796 wrote:
So you think a 2200 player, who's level of play has often been quite poor, having a 100% matchup rate with Houdini outside of the opening book is a coincidence?
No, I think the notion of having a 100% matchup rate with Houdini is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing. Its a meaningless concept. What defines a "matchup"? Besides, the guy lost two of the games in that tournament, and had two draws, so he hardly had a '100% matchup rate'.
Are you a total moron? Matchup means that you look at the evaluation box of the software (lower right hand corner in Lilov's video) and pick the move that appears on top ot the best moves list.
Matchup means that you look at the evaluation box of the software (lower right hand corner in Lilov's video) and pick the move that appears on top ot the best moves list.
Except, the top moves change... so if you want to make him look guilty, you wait until the move is at the top... if you want to make him look innocent, you wait until some other move is at the top.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#174
FIDE has been pretty silent about the case... there are some comments on his FIDE profile page, but all are from anonymous outside parties, none from FIDE itself.
http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=2903741
@AdamRinkleff
It doesn't change a thing, the games follow the engine recommendations to a degree unheard in even elite tournaments.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#176
Crazychessplaya wrote:
@AdamRinkleff
It doesn't change a thing, the games follow the engine recommendations to a degree unheard in even elite tournaments.
... and it's not just "by a significant margin". It's by a HUGE margin. 3+ standard deviations is more than just a warning signal.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#177
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Matchup means that you look at the evaluation box of the software (lower right hand corner in Lilov's video) and pick the move that appears on top ot the best moves list.
Except, the top moves change... so if you want to make him look guilty, you wait until the move is at the top... if you want to make him look innocent, you wait until some other move is at the top.
You seem to be relying on impressions from FM Lilov's video. Proper methodology (such as Polar_Bear and Goldendog presented) does not do that.
However, this should not be discussed in this forum. I placed a link to a detailed description in one of the Cheating Forum threads.
Hey just read the first page.
The guy did not cheat back up everybod. This guy is not Lance Armstrong. Take him to Oprah ............ she will cross the t's and dot the i's. Then when we have him seated. We call him a no good stinking cheater. And he worse than Lance Armstrong. Lance never said anything as stupid when they first suspected him. In the end he will admit it.
Get your old chess pieces ....pawns from sets you can no longer use and get ready to throw them at him. No we keep him around to play in the little kids table and he can play with them. Ever see a kid when they get cheated in a game. More so the girls, it is brutal to the ears.
We get our ...what did he say again. He beat Houdini 10-0. Get our shirts with that printed and we go to tournaments wear them. In the end he will admit it.
LegoPirateSenior wrote:
Although indeed, it is surprising that the thread did not get locked, with an admonition to move it to a more appropriate place.
So long as we keep to otb cheating, we can continue here.
Your later link to an explanation of T3 and its refinements is a good idea though. The nuts and bolts of T3 has been worked out already in some real detail, and it makes sense to pose questions about it all there.
[...] Anyhow, you have a big phallacy in your reasoning when you state that the evidence of the Professor is worth more then the comment of Lilov. Please, tell me, who is the expert in chess? The one with the higher rating or the one with deep knowledge in statistics? [...]
The above is from page 5 of this thread, post #97 at the time I am writing this. I am somewhat surprised that nobody answered to the above. It is easy to check Prof. K.Regan's chess credentials: he is an IM, with current FIDE rating 2372 (was 2407 in July 2010). He published for years on the topic of cheat detection and related applications of computers, and collaborated with GM Macieja.
FM Lilov's current FIDE rating of 2433 (and peak of 2443) are somewhat higher, true, but with all due respect, his computer analysis done in the first video not in the same league as what Regan does when applying computer analysis to cheat detection.
FirebrandX' analysis is more convincing than Lilov's, but Polar_Bear and Goldendog (and SteveCollyer -- I am somewhat surprised he did not make an appearance here) have a much more solid and scientific approach to doing such analysis.