Me vs Team chess.com (FINAL THOUGHTS)
Sort:
haha yeah, i think most of us, after reading his first post here probably thought "whoever he is, he is one tough badass."
So you let your programs play a few moves against eachother. Does this mean that your SUPER SECRET MAGIC NINJA MEGA BRAIN POWER OVERDRIVE ability is revealed now? Because you can teach a fairly gifted chimp to do that.
All you've proved with your useless posts so far is your complete inability to read a chess position. If you truly are a computer chess expert you'd know how horrible chess engines are at endgames. Even rybka draw many endgames where a win could forced fairly easy. The trust you put in the engines analyzing ability when you let them play out a entire match to the end against eachother since you can't read the endgame position yourself is going to be your downfall.
I don't even belive that this will be the first time you're check mated, unless your secret is to resign before a mate.
May 10, 2008
0
#25
Actually, there are other options than resigning. Timing out is one, though that's also considered a loss. Another option is disconnecting, though that doesn't seem possible here.
"My endgame tablesbases are HUGE. The combinations are something like 1.3 ZILLION. You mere humans have no chance of outhinking that."
Zillion, eh? We mere humans tend to use real numbers...
Singa wrote: I would like to post a question here. Whenever I have beaten an opponent for instance, finamor in the "Goring Gambit" tournament or Telox in chess.com quick knockout tournament, I am asked to select a trohy for my beaten opponent. Is there an error here on the part of the Administrator? Should the Winner of a game be awarded a trophy or the Loser? Please comment! What is more puzzling still is that when Telox in turn beats me, I am asked to select a trophy to be awarded to him! Pleases comment! LOL
Thanks Singa. 
Part of the reason that this whole exercise has been so appealing to me is that Cheater_1 echoes a sentiment that I feel, as no doubt many others here feel: that many of our online opponents, despite Erik's and the site's warnings about cheating, continue to use programs in their games and continue to inflate their ratings. As much as Cheater_1's "Dr. Evil" rantings are fun and absurd, they are hitting the target as far as I'm concerned; he is not the only cheater on this site. He is not the only megalomaniac on this site. I continue to face opponents that call themselves "The Master of (fill in the blank)", complete with cape and evil henchmen. No one likes to lose, but these people have taken winning to a whole new level. It becomes more like a Mexican wrestling match than a Chess game. Cheater_1 recognizes that online Chess is flawed, and that the reason for this whole exhibition was to prove that point against anyone who would beg to differ with it.
I don't believe that Cheater_1 will resign. He's asked for a vacation, which is ours to give or take. I vote that we grant it, or otherwise the game proved nothing. He would remain "unmateable".
It would be intersting if Cheater actually stayed consistent with what he says. Eric posted previously a link to a thread Cheater has posted on where he said if the game came out a draw he would consider he had lost and therefore would be playing on to win. Now as he sees at best from the current position it would be a draw for him given strong play on both sides he has decided to change his tune and say if its a draw he was right. How many more times will he change his story? I for one dont take anything he says as the truth and certainly as to the comment about using a computer to go through various options then using his brain to pick his move. Well lets just say a pinch of salt or maybe more like a ton of salt is required there I feel. Dont worry about losing any respect if you lose Cheater. You would have had to have had some in the first place for that to happen.
I also support giving Cheater_1 the vacation. From a human factors standpoint, I'd say any 1 player (gm-level, whether assisted or unassisted) versus a public team has the advantage - his decision-making dialog is all internal rather than public, and he doesn't have to worry about a consensus-driven bad move. How the heck did white lose that pawn to begin with?
I for one am not looking for a draw.
Oh we should give him the vacation to be sure. He's been around long enough, and demonstrated that he follows by some kind of code of honor (ie. not posting in threads not his own, not attacking unless provoked, etc), as many of us have come to some sort of fondness for him - happy he's here as part of the group (haha although Artemis is alone in the lapdog heroworship). You're right Niven, he vocalises what might be, without him, the elephant in the room. I was just worried that his post was trying to establish wiggle-room reasoning to make for an early exit. If it will be a draw, then let us discover as much. Cheater has infiltrated our side of the vote chess discussion; now there is a network of messaging behind the scenes wherein our victory is being orchestrated. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see the game play out, whatever the result. He knows I like him (notice how he never responds to my posts? Heh) and that I enjoy what he's accomplished, doesn't mean I don't want to see him lose this match.
phantomfears is spot on. cheater_1 always change his story several times depending on the outcome. It's actually pretty sad to see that some people actually buy into this and think that he can predict things.
xyzzy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit
May 10, 2008
0
#33
Wouldn't vacation time give Cheater_1's "brain" more time to think?
It sounds like the team has Cheater_1 in a little trouble. He's asking for vacation time, pretending his play is stronger than it is, talking on the forums about the game as a bit of distraction... Anything else i'm missing?
Sunshiny wrote:
Wouldn't vacation time give Cheater_1's "brain" more time to think?
It sounds like the team has Cheater_1 in a little trouble. He's asking for vacation time, pretending his play is stronger than it is, talking on the forums about the game as a bit of distraction... Anything else i'm missing?
As much as I'm of the opinion that he's in trouble in the current game. I don't for a minute believe that his asking for vacation is evidence of that. 1.) it's nearly a month into the future, this debate might become moot by that time. 2.) We all (theoretically) have lives outside of chess, and I know that I'd be pretty upset if I were in his shoes and was unable to take a few days off. 3.)Any extra time his computers might have to think, is also given to the computers on our side, so IMO, the extra time actually gives team chess.com the advantage, as we have more computers.
Cheater: It seems you got hold of a copy of my analysis and reaslize your in deep do do. From the sounds of it you still think you can get a draw. Good luck. I deliberately left out a piece just incase you had a second identity on our teams blog that we didn't know about. So I'll tell you what, if I think you've found something that I missed I'll call for the draw. You must be prepared to play this out for quite a while and we'll be happy to honour your holiday if it comes to that.
Now, I'm certain that you know I'm not using a computer. Mine is just a 2.1 Ghz clunker. I'm not going to be lured into comment on my plans. FYI. My computer scores the current position as a slight edge for us even with the material minus. In just 12 moves that assessment changes radically. I don't know why my computer can't see it from here but it's also blind to some of Nunns test positions too. It actually scores the winning move as bad and just refuses to see past it far enough to find the winning continuation. I know your in the same boat.
May 10, 2008
0
#36
I will admit, good people of chess.com, that I have "altered" my personal stance on this game. Early on I "Knew" I was going to crush you all--I underestimated you. Early on, I was playing for the win and would view a draw as a loss--I am now playing ONLY to preserve my unmateability (draw).
You are now charged with the difficult task of being FORCED to checkmate me and my programs being a pawn down with only one passed pawn to my two. I gotta hand it to you all, you are optimistic.
I think it rather arrogant of you all to DISCOUNT Deep Fritz's 15 minute per move analyzation resulting in a draw. Second guessing one of the world's top 5 chess programs is the height of arrogance.
I am happy that team chess.com would allow me a vacation, because you know that if you didnt, I would use it against you.
2 more cents:
Human creativity keeps us ahead of the machines. When our knowledge is added to the machines book it just becomes a human library. I've yet to see true creativity from a computer.
Our guest is taking a long time for his moves now because we are out of book and well beyond his own knowledge. If he was sure he knew what was happening he would post it and his solution to rub my nose in it. The problem for him is the plan is so strong that together with his computer he can find no solution. Get that in ya Cheater! I'm on to you.
His computer notes that attempt to describe the position are rudimentary at best. Some of what he cites is correct but any 1500 player can see that. I disagree with the statement about neither side using the g-file. Sure we can. Do we want to is another question but it is playable ground. Cheater: Did Rebel actually say the g-file can't be used or likely was of little use? There's a big difference there. Rooks off the board? That can't be good for you. Even you must know that. In BOC ending the attacker is favoured when there is a passed pawn. At least you recognize that the pawn count will even out.
Most of the computers gave the position after Qc3 a slight edge for you. Now, I suspect that has changed. You will be mated if you continue to play. I will announce mate when it is close enough but probably beyond your computers horizon. Unless you resign in 12 moves of course.
cheater_1 wrote:
I will admit, good people of chess.com, that I have "altered" my personal stance on this game. Early on I "Knew" I was going to crush you all--I underestimated you. Early on, I was playing for the win and would view a draw as a loss--I am now playing ONLY to preserve my unmateability (draw).
You are now charged with the difficult task of being FORCED to checkmate me and my programs being a pawn down with only one passed pawn to my two. I gotta hand it to you all, you are optimistic.
I think it rather arrogant of you all to DISCOUNT Deep Fritz's 15 minute per move analyzation resulting in a draw. Second guessing one of the world's top 5 chess programs is the height of arrogance.
I am happy that team chess.com would allow me a vacation, because you know that if you didnt, I would use it against you.
I think cheater, you completly misunderstand the nature of computer chess....
1) The number of branching variaitions [b]Increase exponentially[/b] for each ply in depth. Meaning that, shredders 15 min eval maybe no better than its 5 min eval.
2) Computers, (in reaction to the above problem) often use agressive heuristics and "move pruning" --- this often means that, they can often miss things....miss things which good human players (under corr. conditions) do not miss.
3) The horizon effect (a direct result of [1]) severly limits computer performance in corr. chess.... all what is required for a human win is too correctly "see" beyond this horizon and gain a greater understanding of the initial position...hopefully resulting in a different move (of which, computers may indirectly identify as dubious or unsound)...
as demonstration of this point, I submit a game where, a mere 2200 player defeats the mighty shredder....in 16 moves!
I wonder cheater, What does your computer army make of 7.Nh3?
In one of cheater_1 's first postings he said he would mate us by a certain number of moves, but now seeing he can not do this he is trying to talk his way out of it to make himself feel better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania
I think its amusing though a little disturbing how you position yourself compared to us. Especially your aknowledgement of our finite vision. By the way, beating 5 GM's? I bet you were cheating;)