Treblaine said:
electric method said:
For Treblaine, I am going to use an example of cheating that did not involve a computer but, happened none-the-less at an otb tournament about 10 or so years ago. This was a game between juniors with the names of Sam and Dane (last names omitted for obvious reasons). What happened is this, Dane was an up and coming intermediate player Sam was very close to breaking into the master level of play. Over the course of the game Sam obtained a losing position and when Dane walked away from the board to get additional score sheets Sam moved one of his pieces to obtain a winning position. Sam went on to win the game costing Dane a prize. Ultimately his foul play was discovered and was stripped of the win. Point here being that cheating happened before, and will continue to happen in OTB play.
HOW THE HELL IS THAT RELEVANT?!!?
Moving pieces while the other person is looking away... that's not relevant at all. It couldn't have possibly happened in this case.
And I find it interesting that we all here, as humans, say "ooh, that's such a machine move" in the recognition that machine's method of winning games usually beats the best Chess players. Yet a human couldn't make that move. So a human can recognise a "machine strategy", yet cannot use it themselves.
Look, we all know machines have number crunching strengths that no human can come close to.
But it's also a fact that humans have huge abstract processing power that leaves the most advanced computer and machine processing in the dust, if you can take the strategies that confound grand masters and learn to apply them using human reasoning then you have overnight a huge advantage.
Again WHERE IS THE HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD!
Being too good, or using a winning strategy is not evidence.
It is relevant because cheating in chess has a long, and not so storied past.
Where is the evidence? Did you watch the review that DoPo posted? If not I suggest you check it out. Game 1 is a PRIME example of computer assisted play. There are moves he plays that NO GM would play because they give up huge positional advantages AND are just not thematic with the opening he has played.
In Game 1, this is a Kings Indian btw, he plays dxe very early on opening up the d file and leading to an early exchange of queens. Almost every master level player is NOT going to play this move. A computer, however will. Why won't a master play dxe in that position, that early in the game? Well, it's like this. White's plan in that line of the KID is simple. Central control. It's all about central control. dxe sacrifices the huge positional adv that pawns on c4, d4 and e4 and gives up control of the center of the board, opens up the diagonal for black's fianchettoed bishop on g7, and loses control of the important central squares of c5 and e5 that the pawn on d4 controlled.
Add to it that in that position white has not castled, has not developed many minor pieces and then plays dxe? This is not a normal move at all for the position. Also, and furthermore, dxe removes the threat white has of a timely f4! later in the line signaling a pawn steam roller on the king's side of the board AND increases white's central control. dxe also removes the possibility of white playing d5, closing the board and locking down the center of the board plus seriously cramping black's position. It also leaves black in a bind bc if they want to break that central structure via a pawn push it either has to be a c6 or f6 push, both of which leave black with pawn structure issues. If f6, it weakens the King's side of the board. This is bad bc in most lines of the KID black castles king side. All of that taken together shows that this is NOT the play of an experienced and knowlegable GM but, that of a computer.
Only a comp would play dxe at that time, with those time controls in that position because the computer does NOT think positionally. It thinks tactically. An early exchange of queens makes a lot of sense for a comp in that position bc it's tactical vision is PERFECT. Also, ran through the engine dxe is the number one suggested move of the engine as well as almost every move past move 6. Humans and computers do NOT think alike. For a human to play almost every suggested move in a ever changing position is not only unlikely but, darned near impossible.
In the game where he loses in the endgame around move 104, 105, he has a drawn position. Any 2200+ player, and any GM worth their title would realize they have a drawn position. Immediately play Ke6 and offer a draw. However, playing Bd6? is a massive blunder no GM would ever play. Bd6 is the one move that immediately ends the game as a loss for black. And I do mean instantly. It coughs up the backwards pawn on the d file, allows white to gain a pawn majority and from there it's just a matter of time before white promotes a pawn. Again, NO talented GM would ever make that blunder in an endgame.
In the lost game too, that is a closed position, and if you know what to look for, clearly see that a comp is playing that game, not a human. It wanders aimlessly with no plan. Goes down a road of exchanging pieces instead of a plan until he ends up in almost = position that is going to draw if played properly. However, in the end game you see him playing even more nonsensical moves, repeat moves and stuff that is screwy. All of that followed with the one human move of the game... Bd6. Insta loss. I could go on and on and on. Trust me, I used to catch folks like this for a living. And if the above analysis isn't enough to convice you, go check out chess base and look up the KID.. then look for games where white plays dxe early on in high level play. Better yet, go find a GM, IM or FM and ask them if that is a good move or even one they'd play. I would put money on the fact they'd say no they wouldn't then launch into something like what I just posted.
Edit: My apologies to all that do not understand chess at this level. I specifically tried to avoid having to do something like this as most people are not going to get what I posted. Again, my apologies.
