Use of chess engine • page 3/6 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

OK, I'll ask directly: where exactly do you think I "defended the cheaters"? I really don't understand what part of my comment(s) makes you think I'm "defending the cheaters".

what makes you think i was talking about you?

@mkubecek said in #20: > OK, I'll ask directly: where exactly do you think I "defended the cheaters"? I really don't understand what part of my comment(s) makes you think I'm "defending the cheaters". what makes you think i was talking about you?

LeechessMothsRGhey edited

#22

@Woland52

It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters.

Bottom line:

You are not crazy.
It is happening.
It is frequent.
Mods care more about people talking about cheating than the cheating, so don't expect anything to be done about it.

@Woland52 It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters. Bottom line: You are not crazy. It is happening. It is frequent. Mods care more about people talking about cheating than the cheating, so don't expect anything to be done about it.

lonelypeanut

#23

@LeechessMothsRGhey said in #22:

@Woland52

It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters.

It's not though. Some are better at Endgames, some prepare an opening trap and then don't know how to go on etc.

@LeechessMothsRGhey said in #22: > @Woland52 > > It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters. It's not though. Some are better at Endgames, some prepare an opening trap and then don't know how to go on etc.

V1g1yy edited

#24

@LeechessMothsRGhey said in #22:

It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters.

By your logic the Op is also a cheater because he sometimes plays accurately and other times blunders and loses. Sometimes he blunders and then plays well enough to gain a winning advantage again.

I fully understand that you can get a feel for when the moves are not natural. Take note that I don't play online chess, so if you think I'm defending anything or being a site fanboy, or that I think cheating is rare online, you are mistaken. What I am saying is on the other site you have absolutely no possibility of playing a majority of fair players, but here at least the vast majority of games look believable to me. The moves people find are not impossible engine lines, and the number of games where people never have a winning advantage are virtually zero. As I said above, I saw only one of his losses where that was the case, but since I looked at more games I saw another, though it only lasted 13 moves when he blundered first move out of book in the opening and resigned immediately. Looked like something I would do.

My criteria for what I think is Justified suspicion, is when I go back through the game and see moves that I never would make. Little things that maintain the advantage but don't look to have a purpose. Not to my eyes anyway. I'm sorry to say but I just didn't see any of those.

When I do puzzles here I very frequently will click the button to play this position against the engine. If my advantage is +3 or +4, I have about a 50% likelihood of playing that out to a win. In a complicated middle game with a lot of pieces left on the board, my odds are not good. In simpler positions they're way better. After I do that enough I get a feel for what it is to play an engine versus a human. And I'm just not getting that feel when I look at his games.

In a Levitov interview, Fabiano Caruana said he made an anonymous account and couldn't make it past 1800 rapid on the other site. He estimated the cheating to be beyond 50% and maintains that opinion to this day, although now he's less outspoken about that percentage and you have to read between the lines to realize he hasn't changed his mind.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't think so.

@LeechessMothsRGhey said in #22: > It happens all the time. Incongruous play between different phases of the game is an easy way to spot cheaters. By your logic the Op is also a cheater because he sometimes plays accurately and other times blunders and loses. Sometimes he blunders and then plays well enough to gain a winning advantage again. I fully understand that you can get a feel for when the moves are not natural. Take note that I don't play online chess, so if you think I'm defending anything or being a site fanboy, or that I think cheating is rare online, you are mistaken. What I am saying is on the other site you have absolutely no possibility of playing a majority of fair players, but here at least the vast majority of games look believable to me. The moves people find are not impossible engine lines, and the number of games where people never have a winning advantage are virtually zero. As I said above, I saw only one of his losses where that was the case, but since I looked at more games I saw another, though it only lasted 13 moves when he blundered first move out of book in the opening and resigned immediately. Looked like something I would do. My criteria for what I think is Justified suspicion, is when I go back through the game and see moves that I never would make. Little things that maintain the advantage but don't look to have a purpose. Not to my eyes anyway. I'm sorry to say but I just didn't see any of those. When I do puzzles here I very frequently will click the button to play this position against the engine. If my advantage is +3 or +4, I have about a 50% likelihood of playing that out to a win. In a complicated middle game with a lot of pieces left on the board, my odds are not good. In simpler positions they're way better. After I do that enough I get a feel for what it is to play an engine versus a human. And I'm just not getting that feel when I look at his games. In a Levitov interview, Fabiano Caruana said he made an anonymous account and couldn't make it past 1800 rapid on the other site. He estimated the cheating to be beyond 50% and maintains that opinion to this day, although now he's less outspoken about that percentage and you have to read between the lines to realize he hasn't changed his mind. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't think so.

tpr

#25

"In a Levitov interview, Fabiano Caruana said he made an anonymous account and couldn't make it past 1800 rapid on the other site. " * That is outrageous. Cheat.com, but 50%... Caruana not reaching 1800 rapid??

Cedur216

#26

Yes, this needs an actual source.

Toscani

edited

#27

The only real way to make a true rating grow is by the ratings in the pool. If you are not exposed to ratings in the master level you will never get a master rating. So 1800 is just an earned number and in this case it represents GM level, knowing the player was a GM. This is a prime example why ratings cannot be compared or assumed they mean something more than what they really are, a standings number in the group of players that caused that effect.

So, ...
Ratings are not universal indicators of skill;
They only measure rank relative to a pool;
Without some form of cross-pollination between strong and weak pools, rating inflation or deflation will occur; and
Always consider the context of a rating, not just the number !!

The only real way to make a true rating grow is by the ratings in the pool. If you are not exposed to ratings in the master level you will never get a master rating. So 1800 is just an earned number and in this case it represents GM level, knowing the player was a GM. This is a prime example why ratings cannot be compared or assumed they mean something more than what they really are, a standings number in the group of players that caused that effect. So, ... Ratings are not universal indicators of skill; They only measure rank relative to a pool; Without some form of cross-pollination between strong and weak pools, rating inflation or deflation will occur; and Always consider the context of a rating, not just the number !!

tpr

#28

"So 1800 is just an earned number and in this case it represents GM level"

That cannot be true. Caruana with an anonymous account should be able to rise from 1500 to 2500 in no time, just by beating his opponents.

"So 1800 is just an earned number and in this case it represents GM level" * That cannot be true. Caruana with an anonymous account should be able to rise from 1500 to 2500 in no time, just by beating his opponents.

Toscani

edited

#29

A rating will rise to an extent as long as you win similar ratings, but once a rating range is too far a part the higher rated rating will not increase even if they win. If an Elite player cannot be permitted to win players above 1800 because of the skill levels of the online players, than the rest of those higher rated players are what beyond Elite level or Puppets?

tpr

#30

"once a rating range is too far a part the higher rated rating will not increase even if they win"

Once the rating goes above 2200 the gain by beating 1800 rated players becomes small.
However, as Caruana on an anonymous account gets to 2200 he also gets paired against players around 2200, which he would easily beat, rising up to 2600.
Then he will be paired with players around 2600 to rise to say 2800-3000.

"once a rating range is too far a part the higher rated rating will not increase even if they win" * Once the rating goes above 2200 the gain by beating 1800 rated players becomes small. However, as Caruana on an anonymous account gets to 2200 he also gets paired against players around 2200, which he would easily beat, rising up to 2600. Then he will be paired with players around 2600 to rise to say 2800-3000.