Chess Match Thread
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Well, there is only two of us. Why do you suspect computer analysis? I don't see anything unusual about what has transpired thus far.
Maybe I spoke too early, but I said it mostly for trolling anyway. It was like %80 trolling/joking and %20 serious. Still, I should have waited for the games to be ended. Then I could analyze them better anyway.
Lol, for the %20 serious part, not that I don't trust you guys or I believe that you guys couldn't be strong players. If anything, you(Siro, Log, babe etc) are the ones whom I would expect to be strong chess players. It's just that babe's this thread made me go at chess again after years and I've spent quite some time in these two days on the internet to get my knowledge about chess up to date. In the mean time, I have downloaded several chess engines and chess games and have been playing around with them for fun. Anyway, there were a few moves from both of you that the engines were particularly agreed on. (I will reveal them later after I have a better opinion) But like I said, I spoke prematurely, I should wait for the games to end, and even a few parties to be played then I could easily have a much better opinion about it.
As I mentioned earlier, I played chess in high school years and played for the school team. I was around 1750 elo at my peek and I even finished 8th overall in the city at my age category(U16) in a big chess tournament(that means my city sucked at chess). However, after as I got in more competitive environment, my elo diminished to 1650 and before I had the chance to improve it again I had to quit playing because of the university entry exams. Anyway, what I'm trying to tell is, you could somewhat determine the strength of a player from his games using the chess engines etc, if a casual player uses winboards or any modern chess engines or games etc to cheat you could easily tell apart it by analyzing the games and comparing the results what type of a player he/she is. What would you expect from a casual chess player is a strength rating of 1300-1800 or 2000 at the most. Semi professional players such as players who attend to local tournaments etc can often up to 2100-2250 easily. Any ratings of 2250-2300+ are indicators of a full time chess hobby/profession or at least semi professional chess careers. So when a casual player gets help from the modern chess programs that can easily play over 2600-2800+, it will be just so easy to detect it.
Btw, let me state again that I'm not making any assumptions about your smartness/intelligence or chess strength. You guys could be avid chess players with 2200+ ratings for all I know. I'm sure you guys are certainly capable of that. But it's just the fact that chess is not a game that you can have those kind of ratings with purely intelligence. Casual players are and will always be severely limited in the game of chess no matter how smart or intelligent they could be(unless they started chess at very young ages and played most of their childhood). Because chess is a freaking mind sport that requires countless hours and immense hard work consistently for very long years to be a master at.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I am not surprised that we would agree with a chess engine. If you are a solid player you have a good understanding of the logic of the moves, basic strategy (such as development, center control, piece strength, pins, forks, etc.), and some situations almost force moves when you have a good understanding of the game. That is why I pointed out that up to a certain point I had a pretty good idea where it would go, and I called our game at least 4 moves ahead ever since siro played e4, which was the deviation from any kind of mainline developing. As soon as I pinned his knight with my bishop (which was taking a risk on my part, I had several other moves available but I wanted to rattle the cage, so to speak) then it was pretty clear where it was going at that point. That we both followed the logic of the game was no surprise to me, although I would be curious to know what your game engine was telling you we should do. I always learn when I play.
And I have talked a bit about my past in chess and had my own days playing rated tournaments and such. I started playing at age 5 like babe, and played every chance I got until my mid-20's or nearing 30 or so. I also started the chess club in my high school. Since then I have played on and off at differing levels of competition, and most recently play with the Reno Chess Club, although sporadically. I haven't tried to really analyze my way through a game in a long time, and mostly anymore play pretty casually. But I think when I have the time and can work out the moves and combos I can still be pretty competitive but there is some parts of it that just kind of flow sometimes.
That's why I realized that I spoke too early, it's perfectly normal for certain amount of moves to be the same with a chess engine in the beginning of a game. Especially within a given opening it should be inevitable.
However except the unusual short games, after analysis of a full game(at least several games ideally and the more the better of course), if there are more than expect-able amount of moves that are same with what a modern chess engine would play, then that means there are just two possible explanations. Either the player is a very good chess player, or he/she gets help from a program. Of course, again, I'm not implying anything. It's just the fact that there is no way for a casual player to be able to play exactly the same or suspiciously similar to the modern chess engines such as Houdini, Stockfish, Rybka 3&4 or Komodo etc which are all well above 3000 elo ratings and can smoke any of the GMs of today in a match.
About the analysis part, it's a good indicator that if a player is consistently finding the best 3-4 moves throughout the game, an indicator of a very strong player/cheater, that is. Some game analyzers measure the frequency of the times that players pick those top moves. Another indicator would be the inconsistencies, like very unique and good moves in some parts of the game that betokens a comprehensive understanding of the game but some weak and unexpectedly bad moves in some other parts of the game(not to be mixed with blunders). Some chess engines can detect this inconsistencies pretty easily as well. One another indicator is the "hard to find" moves or move sequences. Chess engines will find them without a sweat, but it's nearly impossible for casual players to find them, even the great GMs would overlook them many times and they would be proud of themselves when they find them.
But at the end, you cannot tell if a player definitely cheats or not if you don't have enough gameplay data and if you don't consider the level of the player and the type of the game that is played. For instance, if Kasparov, Anand or Carlsen or some other top GMs were playing a game like we play here, their game analysis would show %99 of similarity with a 3000+ chess engine. Because they will have all the time to analyze their moves before play it which they are best at it. But If they were to play a regular lets say 2 hours of a chess game, they would play much less perfect game and differentiate in some parts of the game comparing to the chess engines that play almost perfect these days.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
1. d4 Nf6
2. Nc3 e6
3. e4 Bb4
4. e5 Nd5
5. Qg4 g6
6. Bg5 f6
7. e5xf6 Nxf6
8. Qh4 0-0
9. Nf3 Nc6
10. Be2 b6
11. 0-0 Bb7
12. Re1 Be7
Ugh hate that move, but it was basically forced. Probably should have made it earlier.
2. Nc3 e6
3. e4 Bb4
4. e5 Nd5
5. Qg4 g6
6. Bg5 f6
7. e5xf6 Nxf6
8. Qh4 0-0
9. Nf3 Nc6
10. Be2 b6
11. 0-0 Bb7
12. Re1 Be7
Ugh hate that move, but it was basically forced. Probably should have made it earlier.
