Mike S. wrote:17...g5 looks like a natural move to me and the refutation seems quite deep. I don't think that any suspicion should be based on it, for that and also because it's only one move. I'm almost sure you could find such "natural but refuted" moves in very many losses of strong players (including the pre-computer era! ).
More promising would be, if a player often wins with "mysterious" tactics which seem beyond human grasp. But also, this has been seen long before the computer era, and not only from very famous players. Chess books are full of that.
P.S. The Hamilton Chess Club responded to the incident with good sense of humour:
In any case, I spoke with a few people and it turns out there have been many accusations of computer use and cheating by her father and her. As to this particular incident, I guess they found the lengths taken to cheat, raiding a sub-1700 tournament, so pathetic, it just seemed funny.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
michiguel wrote:Kg8 and g5 is a typical computer weak maneuver.
Things must be more complicated here, when apparently Zappa Mexico II choses 17...g5 up to depth 19.
Also, I think playing Kg8-Kh8-Kg8 when it seems (! a judgement may fail) appropriate, can also be considered human play by comps, not just vice versa. Humans were first!
michiguel wrote:Kg8 and g5 is a typical computer weak maneuver.
Things must be more complicated here, when apparently Zappa Mexico II choses 17...g5 up to depth 19.
Also, I think playing Kg8-Kh8-Kg8 when it seems (! a judgement may fail) appropriate, can also be considered human play by comps, not just vice versa. Humans were first!
No, it is not appropriate.
Miguel
Yes, the chance a strong player would play that sequence is pretty much zero.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Albert Silver wrote:
They are welcome to take it this way, but I'm with Steve Giddins (British Chess Magazine) on this one.
In any case, I spoke with a few people and it turns out there have been many accusations of computer use and cheating by her father and her. As to this particular incident, I guess they found the lengths taken to cheat, raiding a sub-1700 tournament, so pathetic, it just seemed funny.
I agree with Mr. Giddins, as well. As far as I'm concerned they're a pair of jackasses.
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"
jdart wrote:I don't think this is evidence of cheating by itself.
You could view .. Kh8 perhaps as inviting a draw by repetition, which White could have accepted by also shuttling the Rook.
Some strong players also repeat moves (<3 times) because it's an easy move that gives them some extra time to think (and gets them 1 move closer to time control, if that is a factor).
I disagree in this case. It's extremely unlikely a human player will play Kh8 + Kg8 + g5. Particularly Kg8 followed by g5 does not make any sense. I may accept Kh8 and g5 (you make room for the rook to come to g8) but playing Kg8 and g5 is a typical computer weak maneuver.
Miguel
How is it even possible for people to use a computer in OTB tournaments? Special eyeglasses? Chip brain implant? How is it done? Hand signals from a buddy?
I don't think a short move sequence in a game she lost is strong evidence that she cheated in that game. Blocking her own rook with Kg8 could be explained by the fact she's playing in a sub-1700 tournament and thus didn't yet understand why that's a dubious move. G5 looks even less suspicious to me.
I'm not saying she's not a cheater, I haven't seen her other games, but this example is not convincing.
I always think it is best to err on the side of the accused. Unless there was some obvious technical proof that some electronic device, or signaling, or other means of cheating took place ... I think it is highly unfair to claim such a serious offense by simply looking at moves. I know that sometimes it is very obvious that someone is cheating from looking at the moves, I go through some of my Playchess games and see it (especially at longer time control games) but still the assumption should be that the person is not guilty until more proof is provided. Nothing is worse than being accused of something that you are not guilty of. I remember the accusation of Topalov against Kramnik, and I think that was very unfortunate as for many people Kramnik is looked at as a person who was cheating ... although by going through his games it is very obvious he could have done much better with computer help.
benstoker wrote:
How is it even possible for people to use a computer in OTB tournaments? Special eyeglasses? Chip brain implant? How is it done? Hand signals from a buddy?
benstoker wrote:
How is it even possible for people to use a computer in OTB tournaments? Special eyeglasses? Chip brain implant? How is it done? Hand signals from a buddy?
).
