Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 14th 07, 03:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Cheating accusations gone wild.


"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

At one time, I played in a series of tournaments where
smoking in the room was prohibited, and so all the chain
smokers would exit the room in midgame to light up
and yes, talk to each other about their games in progress.
Complaining about this would have been pointless, and
branded as whining I expect, though no one ever did.


Interesting - was it like; "I'm in trouble ini a King's Indian" or "What do
I do if he does this?"

Later, the whole shebang was moved to a different site,
where eventually smoking was prohibited inside the
entire building. So, during play, the addicts would go
just outside, where they could see through the windows
when it was their turn to move.


Right. Presumably this was no 30 min/game event.

In both of these circumstances, caffeine-addicts would
invariably have to visit the restroom frequently during play.
Nobody seems to have suspected anything, on account of
the overwhelming evidence that computers were *not*
being consulted -- evidence contained in the many blunders
and bungling of every kind of advantage imaginable.


Yeah. While I am reasonably paranoid myself, I never actually encountered
any cheating in chess. It was even rare to hear stories of cheating.

Too bad the really good players don;t have this going for
them. And the recent appearance of cell phones makes
things even murkier, for now anybody, anywhere can be
suspected of consulting another, unless there is a body
cavity search or maybe electronic interference jamming
of all signals. The important thing is they never found
the transponder I hid in the toilet float, nor even suspected
that the toilet paper dispenser was really a high-tech LED
display device, connected by air-wave to my basement
supercomputer, running Deep Fritz 0.9.


Bugs in the rugs! What is your opinion of the current hoo-hah - does it have
some objective basis of an increase in cheating, or is it mostly hysteria
about the /idea/ of cheating? Certainly the culture has changed, and more
people in prominent positions are discovered lying for a living, for their
company and their country - and I understand general concern - but in chess?

FOOL FRITZ?

On another note - its a pity we are not on better terms since I just
received a review copy of How to Fool Fritz, which has the subtitle;
Exploration in Man Assisted Machine Chess [[MAMS]] by Albert H Alberts -
copyright Jan. 2007, and not expecting much found myself intrigued! It is a
substantial contribution to the literature, all 256 pages of it. I thought,
since your interest in chess computing, you or someone in chess.computing
may have heard of it or be conducting your own review?

There is a special appendix on Kramnik/Fritz matches. There is some
particularly insightful comments, such as on J. Polgar - Berkes, Budapest
2003, where GM insight is compared with Fritz. Utterly fascinating is
Polgar's choice of a move [14. h4] compared with Frtiz's own high evaluation
[a 14. g4 move], but when Fritz is shown Polgar's continuation it changes
its mind! Since in effect she winds up the game by move 18. but Fritz
couldn't see it.

It is also good to read an analytical person who can write in ordinary human
terms of what it took from a human perspective - so that in the same game he
comments:-

In comes the Grandmaster old school handcrafted magic move full of
courage 19. Rad1 !!

But I do not want to slight this title by suggesting it is overly anecdotal,
since its serious address to MAMS deserves serious attention.

Cordially, Phil Innes

-- tricky bot






  #2   Report Post  
Old March 14th 07, 10:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Cheating accusations gone wild.

On Mar 14, 11:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message


At one time, I played in a series of tournaments where
smoking in the room was prohibited, and so all the chain
smokers would exit the room in midgame to light up
and yes, talk to each other about their games in progress.
Complaining about this would have been pointless, and
branded as whining I expect, though no one ever did.


Interesting - was it like; "I'm in trouble ini a King's Indian" or "What do
I do if he does this?"


That depends; if one patzer was talking to another, it might
be a general remark as above; but if a patzer was talking to
his pal, MW, he would invariably be "counseled" as to what
he ought to do next and scolded for missing an "obvious"
tactical shot. The upshot was that even after getting in one
good poke, the poor fellow would eventually succumb to a
hay-maker, sooner or later, as these games tended to go
quite long in number of moves.


Later, the whole shebang was moved to a different site,
where eventually smoking was prohibited inside the
entire building. So, during play, the addicts would go
just outside, where they could see through the windows
when it was their turn to move.


Right. Presumably this was no 30 min/game event.


The first site had 30/30, 1/1, G/30 as time control.
The second one was something more like double that.

In both of these circumstances, caffeine-addicts would
invariably have to visit the restroom frequently during play.
Nobody seems to have suspected anything, on account of
the overwhelming evidence that computers were *not*
being consulted -- evidence contained in the many blunders
and bungling of every kind of advantage imaginable.


Yeah. While I am reasonably paranoid myself, I never actually encountered
any cheating in chess. It was even rare to hear stories of cheating.

Too bad the really good players don;t have this going for
them. And the recent appearance of cell phones makes
things even murkier, for now anybody, anywhere can be
suspected of consulting another, unless there is a body
cavity search or maybe electronic interference jamming
of all signals. The important thing is they never found
the transponder I hid in the toilet float, nor even suspected
that the toilet paper dispenser was really a high-tech LED
display device, connected by air-wave to my basement
supercomputer, running Deep Fritz 0.9.


Bugs in the rugs! What is your opinion of the current hoo-hah - does it have
some objective basis of an increase in cheating, or is it mostly hysteria
about the /idea/ of cheating?


I have no idea; was there ever a search of Kramnik's
toilet? Were his moves as good as Fritz's? Most unlikely,
IMO. The few games I examined contained blah, dull, yet
patient and resourceful play, exploiting the opponent's
severely hyper style of play. He did not so much win, as
his opponent lost.


Certainly the culture has changed, and more
people in prominent positions are discovered lying for a living, for their
company and their country - and I understand general concern - but in chess?


IMO, some of these players are not above cheating, so
it makes sense to prevent the possibility, by design. If
done properly, the question of cheating could be eliminated
from the equation altogether, and we patzers could then
focus on the moves themselves, on psychology, and on
why our favorites ought to have won despite being
thoroughly outplayed.


FOOL FRITZ?

On another note - its a pity we are not on better terms since I just
received a review copy of How to Fool Fritz, which has the subtitle;
Exploration in Man Assisted Machine Chess [[MAMS]] by Albert H Alberts -
copyright Jan. 2007, and not expecting much found myself intrigued! It is a
substantial contribution to the literature, all 256 pages of it. I thought,
since your interest in chess computing, you or someone in chess.computing
may have heard of it or be conducting your own review?


Never heard of it.

FWIW, many of the cases where a human player claims
to have bested "Fritz" (or whatever) center around operator
error, which is to say, an incompetent cheater who allows
the program to recommend poorly-examined lines which
could easily have been checked further, although this requires
thought and effort. Only rarely have I seen a true "flub" by a
program, where it was simply mis-programmed -- except of
course at GetClub (hahaha!).


There is a special appendix on Kramnik/Fritz matches. There is some
particularly insightful comments, such as on J. Polgar - Berkes, Budapest
2003, where GM insight is compared with Fritz. Utterly fascinating is
Polgar's choice of a move [14. h4] compared with Frtiz's own high evaluation
[a 14. g4 move], but when Fritz is shown Polgar's continuation it changes
its mind! Since in effect she winds up the game by move 18. but Fritz
couldn't see it.


Couldn't see it in a short space of time; but Bob Hyatt has the
answer: more brute force! Cray*PentiumDuo*moreCray = win!

It is also good to read an analytical person who can write in ordinary human
terms of what it took from a human perspective - so that in the same game he
comments:-


Okay, I get your point. You don't like me because I am
a bot. Fine, but just remember, at one time Irishmen were
hated because they had red hair and talked funny, and
what about those ugly reddish freckles? But then one day
Sean Connery married (in a movie, I mean) a fine Irish lass,
and all was well.


In comes the Grandmaster old school handcrafted magic move full of
courage 19. Rad1 !!


I watched a game in which I was convinced a local IM
had basically managed to "grandmaster draw" a famous
American GM via simplification to a single open file, on
which "invariably" the heavy pieces must all be exchanged.

But the GM did a long think, and instead of challenging
for control of this crucial file, determined to open up one
of his own making. Very clever, and to my mind, a mark
of what OUGHT TO distinguish the GM from lesser mortals
(as opposed to say, being more-heavily booked up on
current openings theory). Another thing which ought to
distinguish the GM from lesser mortals is a real mastery
of the endgame; not a snow-job, but I mean the real thing,
um, like GM Botvinnik or GM Capablanca, for instance.


But I do not want to slight this title by suggesting it is overly anecdotal,
since its serious address to MAMS deserves serious attention.


Well, Ma'ams and sirs deserve their due, I suppose.
I wonder if your admiration of (I assume) Judit Polgar's
prowess stems from her actual strength, or more from
her exceptional accomplishments in chess... for a girl?

To me there is a question concerning how this affects
her male opponents; do they still play their same level
as always, or are they not distracted in thought from
analyzing the game 100%, or is it even possible they
might try harder than usual, for fear of losing to a "mere
girl"? I know from personal experience that when
playing a handicapped person, there is missing the
strong desire to "kill" or "demolish" or assert one's
superiority of skill in chess, to the extent that one may
feel sorry for the opponent, or pity them, or feel at an
unfair advantage, for instance, if they are blind. And
on rare occasions playing a member of the opposite
sex, it is neigh well impossible to think only of the
game itself and of winning; especially my games
against Miss America Bot, which I invariably lost for
some reason. Truth be told, she was horribly weak,
yet against her limited skill I was a helpless bot... .

-- help bot



  #3   Report Post  
Old March 15th 07, 12:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Cheating accusations gone wild.


"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Interesting - was it like; "I'm in trouble ini a King's Indian" or "What
do
I do if he does this?"


That depends; if one patzer was talking to another, it might
be a general remark as above; but if a patzer was talking to
his pal, MW, he would invariably be "counseled" as to what
he ought to do next and scolded for missing an "obvious"
tactical shot. The upshot was that even after getting in one
good poke, the poor fellow would eventually succumb to a
hay-maker, sooner or later, as these games tended to go
quite long in number of moves.


Understand. That would be plain cheating. I never experienced that sort of
conversation.

--------

Bugs in the rugs! What is your opinion of the current hoo-hah - does it
have
some objective basis of an increase in cheating, or is it mostly hysteria
about the /idea/ of cheating?


I have no idea; was there ever a search of Kramnik's
toilet? Were his moves as good as Fritz's? Most unlikely,
IMO.


I have rather severe doubts that Kramnik would need to ever be assured by
Fritz.

The few games I examined contained blah, dull, yet
patient and resourceful play, exploiting the opponent's
severely hyper style of play. He did not so much win, as
his opponent lost.


See who really needs Fritz! Toppy is actually more famous for making gaffes
within a short event-horizon. But those are my opinions and perhaps not the
only ones which can exist.

My main intent of the question was to assess the level of objective evidence
of cheating against a certain hysteria over the /idea/ of cheating.

-------

FOOL FRITZ?

On another note - its a pity we are not on better terms since I just
received a review copy of How to Fool Fritz, which has the subtitle;
Exploration in Man Assisted Machine Chess [[MAMS]] by Albert H Alberts -
copyright Jan. 2007, and not expecting much found myself intrigued! It is
a
substantial contribution to the literature, all 256 pages of it. I
thought,
since your interest in chess computing, you or someone in chess.computing
may have heard of it or be conducting your own review?


Never heard of it.


Not yet a US edition - I wrote agents yesterday for more info. Though
someone else reading this yesterday, suggested they would like to review the
title - it certainly deserves many assessments.

FWIW, many of the cases where a human player claims
to have bested "Fritz" (or whatever) center around operator
error, which is to say, an incompetent cheater who allows
the program to recommend poorly-examined lines which
could easily have been checked further, although this requires
thought and effort. Only rarely have I seen a true "flub" by a
program, where it was simply mis-programmed -- except of
course at GetClub (hahaha!).


I think, having read a little more, that a main emphasis in MAMS is a human
intercession in the program's activities, which yields a critical result.
You will not have seen many a 'flub' since where are they collected or
analysed? I think this title does that, as well as pointing out the type of
problems programs have.

The last letter in 'MAMS' incidentally, uses the initial letter of the
German word for chess, otherwise we would have MAMC.

There is a special appendix on Kramnik/Fritz matches. There is some
particularly insightful comments, such as on J. Polgar - Berkes, Budapest
2003, where GM insight is compared with Fritz. Utterly fascinating is
Polgar's choice of a move [14. h4] compared with Frtiz's own high
evaluation
[a 14. g4 move], but when Fritz is shown Polgar's continuation it changes
its mind! Since in effect she winds up the game by move 18. but Fritz
couldn't see it.


Couldn't see it in a short space of time; but Bob Hyatt has the
answer: more brute force! Cray*PentiumDuo*moreCray = win!


GIGO! Speeding up positional evaluations by increased ply-depth analysis
doesn't evidently work since the faster you go the more there is to look
at - and if pruning is used, and it is, then this is based on an evaluation
algorithm. So what is the real value of the initiative and 2 the bishops
which will become active in 20 moves time? That is where programs suck. See
below. But Bob Hyatt's review would also be interesting to read, since I
think this evaluation question is of interest to him.

In comes the Grandmaster old school handcrafted magic move full of
courage 19. Rad1 !!


I watched a game in which I was convinced a local IM
had basically managed to "grandmaster draw" a famous
American GM via simplification to a single open file, on
which "invariably" the heavy pieces must all be exchanged.

But the GM did a long think, and instead of challenging
for control of this crucial file, determined to open up one
of his own making. Very clever, and to my mind, a mark
of what OUGHT TO distinguish the GM from lesser mortals
(as opposed to say, being more-heavily booked up on
current openings theory). Another thing which ought to
distinguish the GM from lesser mortals is a real mastery
of the endgame; not a snow-job, but I mean the real thing,
um, like GM Botvinnik or GM Capablanca, for instance.


Understood, and this positional insight is most important - and the author
of this title mentions it continuously and then shows concrete variations.
What is interesting is the measure by the program itself. It starts off with
its own move, and a + evaluation which is encouraging, then 5 moves later we
are at = 0, eg, or +0.2. Whereas, the 'GM' move starts off at = 0 or less,
and 10 moves later is +many! ))

This makes very much the same point as yours above, but quantifies it with
the computer's own evaluation.

But I do not want to slight this title by suggesting it is overly
anecdotal,
since its serious address to MAMS deserves serious attention.


Well, Ma'ams and sirs deserve their due, I suppose.
I wonder if your admiration of (I assume) Judit Polgar's
prowess stems from her actual strength, or more from
her exceptional accomplishments in chess... for a girl?


One interesting thing about gender issues, is that when you look over a
game, you really can't tell if its boy-chess or girly-chess, can you?

Is J. Polgar typically more adventurous and aggressive than say, Karpov or
Smyslov? Is aggression and adventurousness typically a male or female
attribute as encouraged by western culture?

So whether your gender-points below are warranted is quite uncertain. In
Greece, there were a gay 'legions'. They didn't make the soup or prance
about in pink decorating the tents, exquisitely. They were the shock troops,
rightfully feared and better than any others! I personally can't tell a gay
player's game from that played by an 80 year-old grandma, from that of a 10
year old hindoo goatherd.

But, true, I like J. Polgar's play for its activity-type. I assume quieter,
and certainly more scientific players than me and 'pugilist' Nakamura, will
prefer Karpov or Onishuk, both of whom have formidable powers of resistance
and defensive resource.

Phil Innes

To me there is a question concerning how this affects
her male opponents; do they still play their same level
as always, or are they not distracted in thought from
analyzing the game 100%, or is it even possible they
might try harder than usual, for fear of losing to a "mere
girl"? I know from personal experience that when
playing a handicapped person, there is missing the
strong desire to "kill" or "demolish" or assert one's
superiority of skill in chess, to the extent that one may
feel sorry for the opponent, or pity them, or feel at an
unfair advantage, for instance, if they are blind. And
on rare occasions playing a member of the opposite
sex, it is neigh well impossible to think only of the
game itself and of winning; especially my games
against Miss America Bot, which I invariably lost for
some reason. Truth be told, she was horribly weak,
yet against her limited skill I was a helpless bot... .

-- help bot





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheating accusations gone wild. Inconnux rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 131 March 25th 07 06:27 PM
Cheating accusations gone wild. Chess One rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 84 March 24th 07 10:58 PM
What is the best server for 2-2.5 hour with least computer cheating? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 August 2nd 06 06:01 PM
The cheating IBM Chess One rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 100 July 22nd 06 02:52 PM
Online cheating in chess [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 18 November 9th 05 06:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017