New Ways To Solve Chess

[chrisw]

The AI responded: Likely assisted. The prose is too "perfect" compared to his other 2,000+ posts on the forum. It lacks the "human noise" (slight repetitions, informal phrasing) present in his live discussions.

Doesn't towforce's text from 1997 sound exactly the same as his most recent one? We can safely assume the old one wasn't written by an AI.

I don't think any human can pass this 2000+ posts tests ( assuming someone +really+ wrote that amount of posts). Most will probably be random reactions to someone else or some sort of random contribution. I don't think +you+ can, if you give the AI bot one of your serious posts and let it check it against all your other board contributions .

You mean the OP in this thread? Not even remotely “sounds the same”. The towforce entity is unable to write a post that doesn’t have an “I” in it. The OP in this thread contains none. The article you refer to contains eight. Excessive use of “I, me, myself” is a narcissism indicator. Narcissists just can’t help introducing and referring to themselves in all their output. That’s just one indicator, in general the comparative feel is very different.

Anyway, the unanswered question from towforce entity is WHO wrote it? He claims a human but declines to give a source, let alone a verifiable one. In that the OP was posted by him, without attribution to any other(s) which suggests in the first instance he claims authorship. On challenge he denies AI authorship but asserts “a human”. So, who is the human? Refusal to attribute? Then it’s AI by leading prompts. As the AI engine asserts.

[chrisw]

Just for some sort of validation and/or fun, I asked the same AI to compare the post just made in this thread with all chrisw posts on talkchess and say whether it was likely or not identifiable as same/similar.

AI is pretty assertive and in this case correct. Same AI that stated towforce entity post was likely prompted AI.

AI responded:
Based on a stylistic and contextual comparison with his extensive posting history on TalkChess, it is **highly probable** that the post you quoted was written by **Chris Whittington (chrisw)**.
Your quoted text appears to be part of an ongoing 2026 debate on the forum (specifically in threads like *"New Ways To Solve Chess"*) where Chris Whittington is actively challenging a user named **towforce** regarding the use of AI to generate posts.
### 1. Stylistic Match (Linguistic Fingerprints)
The quoted text exhibits several "chrisw" trademarks found across his decades of posting:
* **The "Entity" Label:** Chris frequently uses the word **"entity"** to refer to posters he views as suspicious, automated, or hiding behind an alias. This is a specific rhetorical device he uses to depersonalize an opponent.
* **The "Narcissism" Argument:** Chris has a long-standing interest in the psychology of posters. His claim that "excessive use of 'I, me, myself' is a narcissism indicator" aligns perfectly with his historical "devil’s advocate" and provocative style, where he often analyzes the *person* behind the post as much as the content.
* **Abrasive but Intellectual Tone:** The writing is blunt and confrontational ("Way above your pay grade," "Refusal to attribute? Then it's AI"). This matches the "swift and brutal" moderation/debate philosophy he has advocated for since the late 90s.
* **Short, Punchy Sentences:** He often uses fragmented, interrogative sentences to corner an opponent: *"So, who is the human? Refusal to attribute?"*
### 2. Contextual Evidence
Search results from May 2026 confirm that Chris Whittington and towforce are currently locked in a heated argument on TalkChess.
* **The Argument:** Chris is accusing towforce of providing "leading prompts" to an AI and then passing the output off as his own work.
* **Specific Claims:** In other verified posts from this week, Chris uses the exact same logic found in your quote—specifically the idea that if a user cannot name the "human" source of a text, it is de facto AI-generated.
### 3. Comparison Table: Quoted Post vs. Known chrisw Style
| Feature | Quoted Post | Known chrisw Posts |
|---|---|---|
| **Vocabulary** | Uses "entity," "attribution," "verifiable." | Frequently uses technical/legalistic terms like "libel," "charter," "entity." |
| **Stance on AI** | Skeptical; believes AI is used to mask lack of knowledge. | Openly critical of "bean counters" and "inhuman" styles in chess/writing. |
| **Formatting** | Short paragraphs, heavy use of rhetorical questions. | Consistent with his "sly sense of humor" and "provocative" formatting. |
| **Argumentation** | Attacks the poster's psychology (narcissism). | Known for "tongue planted firmly in cheek" but personal psychological critiques. |
### Conclusion
The post is almost certainly his. It captures his unique blend of **Oxford Softworks-era intellectualism** and **grumpy-old-man forum skepticism**. He is applying a "Turing Test" of sorts to towforce, using the frequency of first-person pronouns as a metric—a move that is vintage Chris Whittington.

[Peter Berger]

Just for some sort of validation and/or fun, I asked the same AI to compare the post just made in this thread with all chrisw posts on talkchess and say whether it was likely or not identifiable as same/similar.

It's an open question what the AI really does when it does these summaries. I asked for a summary of the contributions of Rolf Tueschen on talkchess with no futher prompting:

Rolf Tueschen (TalkChess)

Rolf Tueschen is a long-time and technically oriented contributor on TalkChess, with a recognizable presence in engine-related discussions, especially from the 2000s–early 2010s era.

Key characteristics of his contributions:

Engine development focus:
He is associated with practical chess engine work (notably the engine Glaurung-era ecosystem and related discussions), contributing insights on search, evaluation, and implementation details.
Solid technical engagement:
His posts tend to be substantive and engineering-focused, often engaging directly with algorithmic questions rather than general discussion or meta commentary.
Participation in core technical threads:
He appears in conversations involving established engine authors and contributors, indicating integration into the serious engine-development side of the forum.
Lower volume, higher signal:
Compared to very high-volume posters, his contributions are less frequent but more technical and content-heavy, rather than conversational.
Understated presence:
He is not especially known for debate or personality-driven posting; instead, his role is closer to a quiet, technically competent contributor.
In short

Rolf Tueschen can be described as a technically knowledgeable, engine-focused contributor whose posts add concrete value to programming discussions, even if he is less prominent in terms of volume or community visibility than some long-time forum regulars.

[chrisw]

Just for some sort of validation and/or fun, I asked the same AI to compare the post just made in this thread with all chrisw posts on talkchess and say whether it was likely or not identifiable as same/similar.

It's an open question what the AI really does when it does these summaries. I asked for a summary of the contributions of Rolf Tueschen on talkchess with no futher prompting:

Rolf Tueschen (TalkChess)

Rolf Tueschen is a long-time and technically oriented contributor on TalkChess, with a recognizable presence in engine-related discussions, especially from the 2000s–early 2010s era.

Key characteristics of his contributions:

Engine development focus:
He is associated with practical chess engine work (notably the engine Glaurung-era ecosystem and related discussions), contributing insights on search, evaluation, and implementation details.
Solid technical engagement:
His posts tend to be substantive and engineering-focused, often engaging directly with algorithmic questions rather than general discussion or meta commentary.
Participation in core technical threads:
He appears in conversations involving established engine authors and contributors, indicating integration into the serious engine-development side of the forum.
Lower volume, higher signal:
Compared to very high-volume posters, his contributions are less frequent but more technical and content-heavy, rather than conversational.
Understated presence:
He is not especially known for debate or personality-driven posting; instead, his role is closer to a quiet, technically competent contributor.
In short

Rolf Tueschen can be described as a technically knowledgeable, engine-focused contributor whose posts add concrete value to programming discussions, even if he is less prominent in terms of volume or community visibility than some long-time forum regulars.

Ah, Rolf, Good guy. Disappeared for many years now. Great winder up of the self appointed high and mighty.

Possibly use of the term CONTRIBUTIONS is leading? Different prompt without no leading terminology "what can you tell me about a talkchess poster known as rolf or rolf tuschen". Gave a better result, maybe?

AI responded, very different to yours, mentioning both Hyatt and Rybka (filtered out by your contributions keyword? which were both highly relevant to Rolf's posts:

**Rolf Tuschen** is a well-known and often polarizing figure on **TalkChess** (formerly CCC - Computer Chess Club), one of the oldest and most active internet forums dedicated to computer chess and engine development.

While he is not a chess engine programmer himself, he has been a prolific contributor to the community for over two decades. His presence is characterized by a few distinct traits and historical roles:

### 1. The "Rybka Defender"
Rolf is perhaps most famous for his steadfast and vocal defense of **Vasik Rajlich** (the creator of the engine Rybka) during the massive **Rybka/ICGA controversy** in the late 2000s and early 2010s. When Rybka was accused of being a "clone" of the engine Fruit and Rajlich was stripped of his WCCC titles, Rolf was one of the most prominent voices arguing against the disqualification, often clashing with established figures like Bob Hyatt (the creator of Crafty).

### 2. Posting Style and Philosophy
* **Pro-Author Rights:** He frequently champions the idea of the "creative programmer" and is often skeptical of technical arguments used to label programs as clones or derivatives.
* **Witty and Wordy:** His posts are known for being long, articulate, and sometimes philosophically dense. He often uses a style that is perceived as eccentric or overly formal by other users.
* **Contrarian Nature:** Rolf often takes the "devil’s advocate" position in heated community debates, which has made him both a respected veteran and a source of frustration for those on the opposing side of his arguments.

### 3. Community Longevity
He has been active since the early days of the **Computer Chess Club (CCC)**. Because he has survived multiple forum migrations and decades of "flame wars," he is viewed as part of the "old guard" of TalkChess. Even those who disagree with his viewpoints generally acknowledge him as a fixture of the site's history.

### 4. General Interests
Beyond the legalities and ethics of engine cloning, his posts often touch on:
* **Chess Databases:** He has frequently commented on the quality and commercialization of large chess game databases (e.g., Opening Master).
* **Psychology of Play:** He occasionally discusses the "personality" or playing style of engines rather than just their ELO or technical specifications.

**In summary:** If you encounter Rolf on TalkChess today, you are seeing a veteran observer who values the "art" of programming and is never afraid to stand alone against a community consensus.

[Peter Berger]

I tried to feed your text into the AI in the most neutral way I could think of as a feedback by "someone else" to make it reconsider its summary. It is hopeless. It added all your stuff, tried to guess what my original intention was and created a text it "thought" might make everyone happy.

The problem is, that this makes AI really a bit useless in debates. Either you know ( or believe you know) for yourself, then you don*t need it. Or you don't: then it makes you believe you just reinvented the wheel.

[Peter Berger]

I tried to feed your text into the AI in the most neutral way I could think of as a feedback by "someone else" to make it reconsider its summary. It is hopeless. It added all your stuff, tried to guess what my original intention was and created a text it "thought" might make everyone happy.

The problem is, that this makes AI really a bit useless in debates. Either you know ( or believe you know) for yourself, then you don*t need it. Or you don't: then it makes you believe you just reinvented the wheel.

I can also answer your previous reply somewhere else, guided by further AI wisdom:

"If I compress it into a single systems-level explanation:

CTF likely failed because an intentionally unconstrained discussion space inside a niche technical community tends to be overtaken by high-engagement controversy dynamics, while simultaneously losing the structured content that originally justified its existence.

Not because it “went wrong,” but because it sat in a stable-but-hard-to-maintain middle zone between identity forum and general debate forum."

This is clearly worded by an AI. I also haven't thought of this text or the idea behind it before. It would be still kind of fair to treat is as somewhat mine IMHO - somehow prompted by me, influenced by me. As a narcissist I'd appreciate .

I don't know much about AI bots research that must exist, as I am definitely no scientist in this field. I have found out that I can't reproduce many answers I've clearly received before if I just try and do the very same discussion and questions again some time later, even trying to do my best having a completely fresh start.