Chessbase's Let's Check Analysis...A Good Thing?

[M ANSARI]

I think you just don't read do you. I said whatever the metric used ... if it is used equally for all players then it means something. So if everyone is checked and one guy get 23 100% and nobody else get more than 3 ... then that person sticks out. By the way "word salad" ... what are you 10 years old?

Thanks for confirming that you hadn’t informed yourself about the feature.

Oh, word salad — a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments. I take it English is not your first language? In which case I apologize for my “word salad” comment.

No not at all ... English is not my first or second language. Thank you for clearing that up! Must be a new word that they are teaching in elementary school. My bad!

[dkappe]

No not at all ... English is not my first or second language. Thank you for clearing that up! Must be a new word that they are teaching in elementary school. My bad!

Maybe if psychiatrists are all ten years old.

[mclane]

I think you just don't read do you. I said whatever the metric used ... if it is used equally for all players then it means something. So if everyone is checked and one guy get 23 100% and nobody else get more than 3 ... then that person sticks out. By the way "word salad" ... what are you 10 years old?

Thanks for confirming that you hadn’t informed yourself about the feature.

Oh, word salad — a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments. I take it English is not your first language? In which case I apologize for my “word salad” comment.

No not at all ... English is not my first or second language. Thank you for clearing that up! Must be a new word that they are teaching in elementary school. My bad!

It is IMO not about cheat detection. Its enough if niemanns helper uses lets check for advice.
Lets check is not the cheat detection tool but the source of moves.

[dkappe]

I think you just don't read do you. I said whatever the metric used ... if it is used equally for all players then it means something. So if everyone is checked and one guy get 23 100% and nobody else get more than 3 ... then that person sticks out. By the way "word salad" ... what are you 10 years old?

Thanks for confirming that you hadn’t informed yourself about the feature.

Oh, word salad — a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments. I take it English is not your first language? In which case I apologize for my “word salad” comment.

No not at all ... English is not my first or second language. Thank you for clearing that up! Must be a new word that they are teaching in elementary school. My bad!

It is IMO not about cheat detection. Its enough if niemanns helper uses lets check for advice.
Lets check is not the cheat detection tool but the source of moves.

Why use this odd little feature when you can just use a multipv = 4 of sf15 or later?

[mclane]

Isn't this obvious ? If you use one or two engines in multiple pv the cheating is easier to detect.
By using the lets check tool you use many more different programs. Almost any engine the users upload into the cloud database.

So if somebody takes stockfish 15 and replays the games with stockfish 15 he cannot find 100% hits.

[dkappe]

Isn't this obvious ? If you use one or two engines in multiple pv the cheating is easier to detect.
By using the lets check tool you use many more different programs. Almost any engine the users upload into the cloud database.

So if somebody takes stockfish 15 and replays the games with stockfish 15 he cannot find 100% hits.

I’ll write slowly, as if I’m corresponding with the present day Bruce Willis:

What is uploaded is the engine analysis, not the engine. If a particular position has not been analyzed, the feature won’t have an opinion about it, so you’ll need a different source for cheating. If a game gets popular (like the Niemann ones), users may end up uploading hundreds or thousands of analyses of that game, so the result of the feature may change over time.

[mclane]

A) what has bruce willis to do with this ?

B) where do i suggest to „upload an engine“ ?

C) if the cloud has no or less info you can use an engine as a fail safe.

[dkappe]

A) what has bruce willis to do with this ?

I don’t know, mclane, what might it be?

B) where do i suggest to „upload an engine“ ?

“Almost any engine the users upload…” If you meant something else, you should have said so.

C) if the cloud has no or less info you can use an engine as a fail safe.

I think we can conclude that you’ve never helped anyone cheat, which is entirely to your credit.

[M ANSARI]

No not at all ... English is not my first or second language. Thank you for clearing that up! Must be a new word that they are teaching in elementary school. My bad!

Maybe if psychiatrists are all ten years old.

OK that explains a lot!

[mclane]

A) mclane is from „commander mclane“ (space patrol, german:Raumpatrouille orion).
Bruce willis famous for his role in american movies is named „ McClane“ which is different to „mclane“.

B) indeed i meant the information from the different engines that is uploaded.

C) i have nothing to do with human chess. I am interested in machine chess. The reason is that i do not like how humans behave when they play chess.
I am interested in chess and not in humans mentally disorders or mental problems.

Computerchess has something human chess can never offer. That is the situation that the observers can loudly discuss the ideas and moves while the machines play live.
In human chess you cannot discuss the position live.
If so you need to do it in a different room.

I find the most interesting situation that programmers and fans sit in one room and all can discuss the moves on board because the machines cannot listen and learn out of the discussion.

In human chess this is very different.

That is why human chess is more about ego while computerchess is about content.