Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 30th 16, 02:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

It occurs to me that it would be far more difficult to computer-cheat at blitz chess (for example 3 mins for each side per game + an extra two seconds per move) than under conventional time limits.
Firstly, players stay seated at the board, and secondly most cheating methods would seem to take way too much time to work in blitz.

As more and more cheating scandals are uncovered, is that likely to result in more and better-funded blitz tournaments? They're great fun to watch. For example, search in youtube under "Nepomniachtchi blitz".

[The reason I'm recommending Nepomniachtchi is that I've heard he's a blitz specialist in the sense that his blitz rating is well above his normal rating.]

Any thoughts?

Paul
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 1st 16, 05:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 149
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

Paul wrote:

It occurs to me that it would be far more difficult to computer-cheat at blitz chess (for example 3 mins for each side per game + an extra two seconds per move) than under conventional time limits.
Firstly, players stay seated at the board, and secondly most cheating methods would seem to take way too much time to work in blitz.

As more and more cheating scandals are uncovered, is that likely to result in more and better-funded blitz tournaments? They're great fun to watch. For example, search in youtube under "Nepomniachtchi blitz".

[The reason I'm recommending Nepomniachtchi is that I've heard he's a blitz specialist in the sense that his blitz rating is well above his normal rating.]

Any thoughts?

Paul


The main problem is that blitz is not considered a estimate of a players
strength. You said so just now. Nepomniachtchi's rating in blitz is
well above his normal rating. Blitz chess is just another variant of
chess itself though it is the most popular of them all. Nakamura just
recently beat Magnus in a classical time control game after 8 losses and
12 draws of trying and even in that game he won he felt Magnus just
grossly blundered so he wouldn't even take full credit for it. However
he has an even score in blitz with Magnus. A world champion in blitz is
not considered highly in the chess world. Neither is a Postal world
champion. I'm not putting both down. They are not at the same level as
the classical tournament game itself.

EZoto
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 1st 16, 11:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On 01/08/16 05:31, Euclides Zoto wrote:
Paul wrote:
The main problem is that blitz is not considered a estimate of a players
strength. You said so just now. Nepomniachtchi's rating in blitz is
well above his normal rating.


IOW, he is relatively good at blitz; and other players are
relatively bad. Other than custom, I don't see a good reason why
one rating is more highly valued than the other, or either more [or
less] highly valued than a correspondence rating.

OK, Paul was asking about the relationship between time limits
and cheating, and clearly there is a problem with correspondence chess
and cheating. There always was, in the sense that only gentlemanly
standards ever prevented a correspondence player consulting with other
strong players to arrive at a collective best move. But it's only
recently that "other strong players" could mean "computers"! There
is no practical way to isolate a player from computer aid over the
weeks and months of a correspondence game, so perhaps a whole form
of chess has been lost; which is a pity, given that correspondence
chess used, beyond reasonable doubt, to be the nearest we had to
perfect play. As with blitz, some players were particularly good at
it, much better than their over-the-board rating would suggest, for
a variety of reasons.

[...] A world champion in blitz is
not considered highly in the chess world. Neither is a Postal world
champion. I'm not putting both down. They are not at the same level as
the classical tournament game itself.


I suspect that this is just snobbery. There is nothing
inherently superior in taking three or so hours over your moves in
a game compared with five minutes, half an hour, six hours, a week,
or longer or shorter. In a few days, the Olympics will be under way,
and when we get to the athletics, there will be [eg] 100m, 1500m and
marathon champions. No-one would bet on the winner of any of these
to do well internationally at any of the others; but they will all
be highly regarded in the athletics world.

Many sports are susceptible to be played in a recognisably
similar version at different lengths. In running and swimming, the
different lengths are an accepted feature. In others, such as the
72-hole golf tournament, the 70-odd lap F1 racing circuit, or the
3/5-set tennis match, one form dominates, at least in esteem, over
all the others. In yet other sports, short forms [5-a-side football
for example] are commonly played as a "fun" version, with or without
formal tournaments. As interesting case is cricket; traditionally
played at the highest levels over several days, club players usually
played instead over an afternoon, or an evening. In the 1960s, the
top players started also to play shorter matches, and a few years
ago an even shorter form ["T20"] was invented. The purists complain
that T20 is a perversion of Real Cricket, and that the quick-bash
skills needed to play it well are destroying skills of top players
in the longer forms. But there is no doubting its popularity, and
therefore its financial attraction.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 13th 16, 07:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 11:13:50 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
On 01/08/16 05:31, Euclides Zoto wrote:
Paul wrote:
The main problem is that blitz is not considered a estimate of a players
strength. You said so just now. Nepomniachtchi's rating in blitz is
well above his normal rating.


IOW, he is relatively good at blitz; and other players are
relatively bad. Other than custom, I don't see a good reason why
one rating is more highly valued than the other, or either more [or
less] highly valued than a correspondence rating.

OK, Paul was asking about the relationship between time limits
and cheating, and clearly there is a problem with correspondence chess
and cheating. There always was, in the sense that only gentlemanly
standards ever prevented a correspondence player consulting with other
strong players to arrive at a collective best move. But it's only
recently that "other strong players" could mean "computers"! There
is no practical way to isolate a player from computer aid over the
weeks and months of a correspondence game, so perhaps a whole form
of chess has been lost; which is a pity, given that correspondence
chess used, beyond reasonable doubt, to be the nearest we had to
perfect play. As with blitz, some players were particularly good at
it, much better than their over-the-board rating would suggest, for
a variety of reasons.

[...] A world champion in blitz is
not considered highly in the chess world. Neither is a Postal world
champion. I'm not putting both down. They are not at the same level as
the classical tournament game itself.


I suspect that this is just snobbery. There is nothing
inherently superior in taking three or so hours over your moves in
a game compared with five minutes, half an hour, six hours, a week,
or longer or shorter. In a few days, the Olympics will be under way,
and when we get to the athletics, there will be [eg] 100m, 1500m and
marathon champions. No-one would bet on the winner of any of these
to do well internationally at any of the others; but they will all
be highly regarded in the athletics world.

Many sports are susceptible to be played in a recognisably
similar version at different lengths. In running and swimming, the
different lengths are an accepted feature. In others, such as the
72-hole golf tournament, the 70-odd lap F1 racing circuit, or the
3/5-set tennis match, one form dominates, at least in esteem, over
all the others. In yet other sports, short forms [5-a-side football
for example] are commonly played as a "fun" version, with or without
formal tournaments. As interesting case is cricket; traditionally
played at the highest levels over several days, club players usually
played instead over an afternoon, or an evening. In the 1960s, the
top players started also to play shorter matches, and a few years
ago an even shorter form ["T20"] was invented. The purists complain
that T20 is a perversion of Real Cricket, and that the quick-bash
skills needed to play it well are destroying skills of top players
in the longer forms. But there is no doubting its popularity, and
therefore its financial attraction.


Some interesting thoughts there Andy, but it doesn't address my additional question as to whether it is likely that blitz will rise in popularity due to it being far less cheat-friendly than other forms of the game. After all, it's possible that the cheating that has been detected is only the tip of the iceberg, and that only 5% of cheating is detected. The cheating that is detected is super-greedy cheating where the cheater simply copies the computer's moves.

However, suppose a coach is watching. The coach can send a pulse to the student whenever the student has an immediate combinational win, thus alerting the student to slow down and find the win. This can easily improve someone's performance by over a hundred ELO points. This might be happening undetected all the time.

Paul
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 17th 16, 05:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On 13/08/16 19:15, Paul wrote:
Some interesting thoughts there Andy, but it doesn't address my
additional question as to whether it is likely that blitz will rise
in popularity due to it being far less cheat-friendly than other
forms of the game. After all, it's possible that the cheating that
has been detected is only the tip of the iceberg, and that only 5% of
cheating is detected. The cheating that is detected is super-greedy
cheating where the cheater simply copies the computer's moves.


I'm not convinced that cheating is, or is likely to become, an
important problem in chess. Outside the highest levels, there simply
isn't enough money in chess to make it worthwhile, and at the highest
levels players know each other too well not to notice sudden changes in
apparent ability or other suspicious behaviour. But see also below.

You may think this to be at odds with my comments in an earlier
article about correspondence chess. However, the problem there is not
exactly cheating [use of computer assistance is explicitly permitted,
at least in the UK, as there can be no effective way of preventing it,
just as use of opening books, etc, has been allowed "forever", for the
same reason], but the pointlessness of merely acting as "postman" for
the move selected by the computer.

As for a postulated rise in popularity of blitz -- I doubt it.
People already play, and will continue to play, five-minute chess and
its relatives as a bit of fun, a good way to get lots of games into an
evening. For those who want to take it a bit more seriously, there
are already blitz and quick/rapid-play tournaments. But not many of
us will want to play our weekend tournaments, club championships and
leagues that way. So these will continue in their present forms. As
time goes on, and people play more online and less by driving out in
the snow to remote parts of the country to play a league match, the
popularity of OTB chess may decline. But not because of cheating,
just because it's relatively less attractive. In any case, cheating
follows the money, so if the money shifts from slow games to quick
games, cheating, in some form or another, will do the same.

However, suppose a coach is watching.


Ah. Then you're talking about a different form of chess from
anything I have ever played personally. I've never had a coach, nor
had an opponent with one, nor had anyone watching my games other than
players interested in my result as rivals or team-mates, bar a few
occasions when, exceptionally, I had a spectacularly interesting
position or opponent.

The coach can send a pulse to
the student whenever the student has an immediate combinational win,
thus alerting the student to slow down and find the win. This can
easily improve someone's performance by over a hundred ELO points.


Possibly. But my need is for someone to send me a pulse when
I'm looking at a move which gives my opponent a win! That is harder
to arrange, but would improve my rating enormously. We are getting
towards the stage where it is possible to incorporate software and
cameras into ordinary spectacles [cf Google Glass, Apple iGlass]
which could either track eye movements to to tell what move I am
considering or more directly or could look at the board and give
a head-up display of its analysis. In a few years time, you will
be allowed to wear glasses only if supplied by the organisers.

Meanwhile, it might be worth noting that a more usual form
of cheating seems to be players striving for a low Elo rating, so
that they can pick up rating prizes. How can you prove that someone
is cheating if all they've done is drop a piece to a blunder?

This might be happening undetected all the time.


Lots of things might be happening undetected! That way lies
paranoia and conspiracy theory.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 18th 16, 01:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:21:59 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
....

This might be happening undetected all the time.


Lots of things might be happening undetected! That way lies
paranoia and conspiracy theory.


Some wrongdoings are usually detected, some aren't. For example, if there's been a theft, it's generally detected by the victim. However, the vast majority of speeding incidents aren't detected.

Even if I've got the wrong category, here -- usually-undetected as opposed to usually-detected --, it doesn't seem particularly crazy.

Is it a paranoid conspiracy to assert that the vast majority of times when someone drives more than 10 miles hour over the speed limit, this transgression is undetected?

Paul

  #7   Report Post  
Old August 19th 16, 01:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On 18/08/16 01:20, Paul wrote:
[cheating at chess:]
This might be happening undetected all the time.

Lots of things might be happening undetected! That way lies
paranoia and conspiracy theory.

Some wrongdoings are usually detected, some aren't. For example, if
there's been a theft, it's generally detected by the victim.
However, the vast majority of speeding incidents aren't detected.


The point is not whether it happens, but whether we should
spend our lives worrying about it. When it becomes possible to
wear glasses [or watches or jewellery] that undetectably [to the
rest of us] scan the board, analyse the position and somehow suggest
the move, then chess will have to change -- and perhaps die except
as a purely social activity. In response to your initial query, I
don't see any interesting difference between blitz and classical
time limits in this respect. But that is still some [many?] years
away.

With current technology, cheating of this general nature is
much too clunky to succeed, and in any case chess is not the most
likely target. There is much more money in bridge, roulette, poker,
vingt-et-un and one-armed banditry [for example]. So those other
areas will see much more electronic cheating than chess.

Yes, there will be occasional people who, largely for vanity
reasons, try [and perhaps succeed in] hiding computers in their
heels or arranging signals with co-conspirators. The idea that it
is in any way common would seem to me astonishing. Almost every
"slow" game I play is followed by a post-mortem, in which we, and
perhaps the odd kibitzer, discuss the course of the game in a frank
and friendly way; an opponent whose analytic ability was at odds
with his play during the game would stick out like a sore thumb, as
would an opponent who refused to join in such analysis. I don't
believe I have ever faced such an opponent. If this is naive, then
so be it. I still enjoy playing chess.

Even if I've got the wrong category, here -- usually-undetected as
opposed to usually-detected --, it doesn't seem particularly crazy.
Is it a paranoid conspiracy to assert that the vast majority of times
when someone drives more than 10 miles hour over the speed limit,
this transgression is undetected?


I don't even know whether this is true. People who zoom past
well over the limit are easily detected by those they overtake. You
are perhaps on better ground if you meant "undetected by the police";
but these days even that is unclear. In the UK, you may get away
with the occasional transgression, but those who speed regularly get
caught regularly. Even if the majority of offences are undetected,
the majority of offenders are caught. Speeding is too common an
offence for it to carry much social stigma, but I would hope that
those who are caught cheating at chess would be drummed out of the
game.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 4th 16, 12:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

Any thoughts?

Paul


This is an interesting thread in that it combines speed of play with cheating, and also quality of play.

I was amazed at the recent 4-way tournament which included Kasparov & also the world #2 rated player, and Nakamura the #1 blitz player & Wesley So. Kasparov got better positions in ALL the games by simply knowing the openings better than his opponents. It wasn't great strategy otherwise to take so much time as Garry did, so he couldn't complete his advantage and turn it into a point — even so, GM speculation at the time was that if the games were 10 minutes instead of 5 GK would have come out first.

Then there is cheating at corres chess as raised by Andy. I play lots of corres against unknown opponents and find cheating to be rare. Maybe one for-sure instance in the past three years — and I have about 25 games going at a time at 5 or 10 days per move. My high rating was 2300, current rating 2258.

I also play some v. high rated players from time to time who appear not to have OTB ratings, but sport a 2750 corres. rating — They possibly spend a lot of time at each move or use computers.

I use time differently than per move - eg, if I look at board and don't see anything I'll skip to the next board without making a move, and maybe tomorrow I'll see something? But I only spend about 30 seconds looking at any board, and if its complicated another 30 seconds sequencing.

I think the vast majority of players don't cheat, and it's usually when there is money involved that it happens.

Phil Innes
  #9   Report Post  
Old September 4th 16, 01:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 12:49:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Any thoughts?

Paul


This is an interesting thread in that it combines speed of play with cheating, and also quality of play.

I was amazed at the recent 4-way tournament which included Kasparov & also the world #2 rated player, and Nakamura the #1 blitz player & Wesley So. Kasparov got better positions in ALL the games by simply knowing the openings better than his opponents. It wasn't great strategy otherwise to take so much time as Garry did, so he couldn't complete his advantage and turn it into a point — even so, GM speculation at the time was that if the games were 10 minutes instead of 5 GK would have come out first.

Then there is cheating at corres chess as raised by Andy. I play lots of corres against unknown opponents and find cheating to be rare. Maybe one for-sure instance in the past three years — and I have about 25 games going at a time at 5 or 10 days per move. My high rating was 2300, current rating 2258.

I also play some v. high rated players from time to time who appear not to have OTB ratings, but sport a 2750 corres. rating — They possibly spend a lot of time at each move or use computers.

I use time differently than per move - eg, if I look at board and don't see anything I'll skip to the next board without making a move, and maybe tomorrow I'll see something? But I only spend about 30 seconds looking at any board, and if its complicated another 30 seconds sequencing.

I think the vast majority of players don't cheat, and it's usually when there is money involved that it happens.

Phil Innes


Kasparov "knows the openings better than his opponents"? That doesn't sound plausible. Opening knowledge (at that level) is mostly about memorization, and since he's not a full-time player, and his opponents are, the amount of material he memorizes, and the ease with which he can retrieve it from memory, must be far below his opponents.
If he's getting an opening advantage and spending more time on the opening than his opponents, the reason for the advantage would be the greater time expenditure, rather than the greater knowledge.

Paul
  #10   Report Post  
Old September 6th 16, 08:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
Default Effect of computer cheating scandals on blitz chess



Kasparov "knows the openings better than his opponents"? That doesn't sound plausible. Opening knowledge (at that level) is mostly about memorization, and since he's not a full-time player, and his opponents are, the amount of material he memorizes, and the ease with which he can retrieve it from memory, must be far below his opponents.


I must ask you two things, Paul.

a) From where do you get your interesting opinions? And

b) the other one is that the GMs commenting on the event said just as I have, in fact I am reporting them. Not that that is necessary — he outplayed everyone in the opening.


If he's getting an opening advantage and spending more time on the opening than his opponents, the reason for the advantage would be the greater time expenditure, rather than the greater knowledge.


Isn't this the same thing? He is taking more time to recall his greater knowledge of opening lines.

Phil Innes


Paul

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 8th 06 05:24 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 April 23rd 06 05:21 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 19th 05 05:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM.

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