What does a "computer move" mean?

What does a computer move mean? What does it look like?

I see people use this phrase and admins ban people by looking for this. When I think of it, it means a "solid move", perhaps "emotionless".

Post some examples?

Or does one just plug in the position in the computer

Uh, if banning is involved, then I'd expect it to mean moves that are so strong that they must have been made by a computer, therefore revealing a cheater.

The definition - whatever it would be - will be fuzzy, and opens all doors for accusations. A guy who plays one or many 'computer moves' will be someone you don't like: either he is heard-hearted, emotionless, his calculation is a matter of merely formal, boring (not at all ingenious), perhaps just (luckily?), although correct, work.  Or he cheated.

So how are these moves recognized and how many of them does it take to really get banned?

I assume this also depends on the rank of the player involved.

Are there examples?

I know somebody who was playing chess here using a computer program for months without getting banned or anything (he's no longer active).

KHuvenaars wrote:

So how are these moves recognized and how many of them does it take to really get banned?

I assume this also depends on the rank of the player involved.

Why do you want to know ?

i think its a counterintuitive move a move so deep that not a human could have come up with it unless he is super GM.

I also think computer move is a better but tedious way(with a lot of risks) of playing when you have a sure win with no risks

Generally speaking it's a logically poor but tactically flawless move.  Human moves can be tactictically good or bad, but almost always have some logic to them.

I'm sure the criteria for bans is stricter than this however.

Basically I would like to see some examples where a cheater has been identified. Not that I worry about this too much, just curious.

I can tell you how cheating is identitified:

By comparing the choice of the player with the first, second and third choice of a strong program. The more coincidences with first choice of the program, taken from a large reservoir of moves of the player (one game is not enough, there must be at least one tournament he played available for comparison) the higher the probability is that he cheated.

This has been discussed at large in the 'B.Ivanov case' forum. In short, Mathematics tells us : if 75 percent of the moves of a player coincide with 1st choice of Houdini, then the probability he cheated is higher than that two identical DNA samples belong to the same person.

You did not read what I wrote: the proof in Ivanov case is how I explained it. Excusivley based on comparison of engine decsisions and those of Iavnov. All what has been said later by officials is not usable in court.

----------------

You are right only in one thing: possible cheaters will be discouraged only if the use of engines during a game is made as difficulty as possible. Handing out all mobile phones to the tournament director prior to a game

is a necessary first step.

Waffle en Tetsuo wrote the best posts about it imo. 

Do they really only use 1 program? I would think the best method would be to test a players moves against multiple engines. Otherwise a player could go undetected if he is using Rybka instead of Houdini. If a player’s move matches one of the engines 75% of the time, then that could just mean he is a strong player. But if 75% of his moves are matching one particular engine, then that would suggest that he is cheating.

Then look at the Ivanov case which is abundantly documented on chess.com and in various other places

a computer move does not nescessarily have to be cheating..

Nope, but a couple of hard-to-find ones by an U2200 player may be...

A typical example of a computer move answered by a computer move:

Here's another example of computer moves. Black makes 2 computer moves in a row:

Now, this might look silly, but I have solid evidence that black's move are computer moves: http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=592571391

viktor how long did you search for the example. pretty cool

@macer75 Wouldn't 2...Qxd5 appear strange if a human played it ?