I agree
Hello,
I haven't taken part in cheating discussions, but now I see a 3-check cheating accusation, so I want to say something.
I took me something like a thousand or two thousand 3-check games here to reach my best, second place on the live rating list so far, with rating close to 2300. I was in the top ten probably quite a few months. I have played 3-check for several decades, but over-the-board and just occasionally. It was a pleasant surprise to see this result of long-time practice gave such good results, considering the number of players and also FIDE titled players up to GMs.
Quite suddenly I noticed number of players appearing out of nowhere playing in very computer-like style (no short-term blunders etc.), conquering the top ten list. I used to play evenly even with some of the top players on the list (who are/were humans). Suddenly to some I lost something like 10-0. Result is not the main thing, playing style tells as much.
This game was given as a proof of cheating:
en.lichess.org/ituL8J4Q/black#22
It looks to me very human-like, resembles a little my own "style". Absolutely this game cannot be used as a proof of computer assistance. 5 minutes per player is enough to play this game for a human.
And who are 3-check GMs? I have seen some videos of GMs playing 3-check, they don't play well. They are not on top here either.
I have background in computer science and several decades of experience in computer chess.
I don't know the player, didn't look his/her other games, didn't find any of my games with him/her.
It's sad of course that 3-check is spoiled with the appearance of 3-check engines here.
I haven't taken part in cheating discussions, but now I see a 3-check cheating accusation, so I want to say something.
I took me something like a thousand or two thousand 3-check games here to reach my best, second place on the live rating list so far, with rating close to 2300. I was in the top ten probably quite a few months. I have played 3-check for several decades, but over-the-board and just occasionally. It was a pleasant surprise to see this result of long-time practice gave such good results, considering the number of players and also FIDE titled players up to GMs.
Quite suddenly I noticed number of players appearing out of nowhere playing in very computer-like style (no short-term blunders etc.), conquering the top ten list. I used to play evenly even with some of the top players on the list (who are/were humans). Suddenly to some I lost something like 10-0. Result is not the main thing, playing style tells as much.
This game was given as a proof of cheating:
en.lichess.org/ituL8J4Q/black#22
It looks to me very human-like, resembles a little my own "style". Absolutely this game cannot be used as a proof of computer assistance. 5 minutes per player is enough to play this game for a human.
And who are 3-check GMs? I have seen some videos of GMs playing 3-check, they don't play well. They are not on top here either.
I have background in computer science and several decades of experience in computer chess.
I don't know the player, didn't look his/her other games, didn't find any of my games with him/her.
It's sad of course that 3-check is spoiled with the appearance of 3-check engines here.
I add one point. The game is only 11 moves, short like 3-check games often are. Playing "perfect" 11-move game is totally different thing from playing a perfect 50-move chess (or 3-check game) .
You're right that it's not as challenging to play a perfect game in fewer moves, but on the other hand using an engine will lead to a shorter game, no?
One game was not given as evidence. It was several games as well as metagame data. Attempting to discredit one game is not a very compelling argument against.
#30 Oh wonderful they're making engines and cheating with variants now.
Such wasted efforts... pathetic.
Such wasted efforts... pathetic.
Speaking of short games, here's 2 of my shortest variant games (variant = Correspondence Antichess, 3 day games each)
en.lichess.org/FqJu1Uq3WX31
en.lichess.org/BJaEuKyFUfFd
Notice how I am black in each of the games. Congrats to @sebschleb and @bilalxcv for playing such 'GREAT' games!
en.lichess.org/FqJu1Uq3WX31
en.lichess.org/BJaEuKyFUfFd
Notice how I am black in each of the games. Congrats to @sebschleb and @bilalxcv for playing such 'GREAT' games!
Possibly use of engine by one of the players leads to shorter games. It could be possible to find out statistically, if the engine-users are surely known beforehand. There are lots of games played here.
3-check has much shorter games usually. I have a lot of 10-move or shorter games, probably most are under 20 moves (didn't check). Very very rarely I have 50 move-games, they are probably found more often in engine-engine games (both are cheating). It's possible that engine by one of the players makes games longer in 3-check, it could depend on the level of the human player.
I only looked at this one game, not interested about other variants or other evidence. This one game is no evidence.
The sudden emergence of strong top players right out of the first game in their history started after 3-check engine was introduced here. A little bit sad.
I don't mean the top ten now. There were some opponents who stopped beating me when they were about the enter the top ten, perhaps avoiding cheating checks by that. I can lose to humans, too, and haven't reported computer users, even though a couple of times I could have. It is better not to risk accusing honest players.
3-check has much shorter games usually. I have a lot of 10-move or shorter games, probably most are under 20 moves (didn't check). Very very rarely I have 50 move-games, they are probably found more often in engine-engine games (both are cheating). It's possible that engine by one of the players makes games longer in 3-check, it could depend on the level of the human player.
I only looked at this one game, not interested about other variants or other evidence. This one game is no evidence.
The sudden emergence of strong top players right out of the first game in their history started after 3-check engine was introduced here. A little bit sad.
I don't mean the top ten now. There were some opponents who stopped beating me when they were about the enter the top ten, perhaps avoiding cheating checks by that. I can lose to humans, too, and haven't reported computer users, even though a couple of times I could have. It is better not to risk accusing honest players.
What's a blur? Can I find my blur? I see my centipawn whatever it is averages at 37. I saw some site where red marks were noted ofr certain components of players (http://imgur.com/a/dKlHs). I'd like to view myself on the screen for comparison as i play fair and curious where in the boundaries i fit.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.