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

[supersharp77]

From The Chessbase Manual........Seems To Be Based on The LC0's (Leela Zero) Community Input Feature To Move the Project Forward....I guess you could call in "Community Chess Analysis Or Global Chess Analysis" asking chess players to contribute their "Novelties" to the Project...Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Dunno For Sure....

Chessbase Manual "3.12 Let`s Check Analysis

3.12.1 Description
"Let’s check" is a new analysis function which will revolutionize the chess world for
years to come.
Engine analysis has changed chess forever. This is so obvious that many aspects are
now taken for granted. For instance, a slow engine on an old notebook does not
always tell the truth, and yet people only wait a few seconds before uncritically
making the recommended move. Popular positions are analyzed by thousands of
players over and over again. This means an immense amount of time and electrical
energy, both of which are finite resources.
The program offers help. Every position that has been analyzed by anyone at any time
is voluntarily saved on a server. The possible engine variations are then available to
everyone who looks at this position. We call this system „Let’s Check“ because
detailed analysis can be gained immediately without investing any time.
Whoever analyses a variation deeper than his predecessor overwrites his analysis. This
means that the Let’s Check information becomes more precise as time passes. The
system depends on cooperation. No one has to publish his secret openings
preparation. But in the case of current and historic games it is worth sharing your
analysis with others, since it costs not one click of extra work. Using this function all
of the program's users can build an enormous knowledge database. Whatever position
you are analyzing the program can send your analysis on request to the "Let’s check"
Server. The best analyses are then accepted into the chess knowledge database. This
new chess knowledge database offers the user fast access to the analysis and
evaluations of other strong chess programs, and it is also possible to compare your
own analysis with it directly. In the case of live broadcasts on Playchess.com
hundreds of computers will be following world class games in parallel and adding their
deep analyses to the "Let's Check" database. This function will become an
irreplaceable tool for openings analysis in the future."...

[dkappe]

Good or bad? Depends on the context. If different users analyze the same game with 100 different engines at different time or depth, what is the likelihood that Crafty, Sargon, SF2, Fritz 5, Hiarcs 6, SF2, SF7, Komodo 9, SF15 disagree on the best move? If naive users (or French FM’s) employ it believing a “match” shows an engine cheat, then it’s a bad thing.

[chrisw]

From The Chessbase Manual........Seems To Be Based on The LC0's (Leela Zero) Community Input Feature To Move the Project Forward....I guess you could call in "Community Chess Analysis Or Global Chess Analysis" asking chess players to contribute their "Novelties" to the Project...Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Dunno For Sure....

Chessbase Manual "3.12 Let`s Check Analysis

3.12.1 Description
"Let’s check" is a new analysis function which will revolutionize the chess world for
years to come.
Engine analysis has changed chess forever. This is so obvious that many aspects are
now taken for granted. For instance, a slow engine on an old notebook does not
always tell the truth, and yet people only wait a few seconds before uncritically
making the recommended move. Popular positions are analyzed by thousands of
players over and over again. This means an immense amount of time and electrical
energy, both of which are finite resources.
The program offers help. Every position that has been analyzed by anyone at any time
is voluntarily saved on a server. The possible engine variations are then available to
everyone who looks at this position. We call this system „Let’s Check“ because
detailed analysis can be gained immediately without investing any time.
Whoever analyses a variation deeper than his predecessor overwrites his analysis. This
means that the Let’s Check information becomes more precise as time passes. The
system depends on cooperation. No one has to publish his secret openings
preparation. But in the case of current and historic games it is worth sharing your
analysis with others, since it costs not one click of extra work. Using this function all
of the program's users can build an enormous knowledge database. Whatever position
you are analyzing the program can send your analysis on request to the "Let’s check"
Server. The best analyses are then accepted into the chess knowledge database. This
new chess knowledge database offers the user fast access to the analysis and
evaluations of other strong chess programs, and it is also possible to compare your
own analysis with it directly. In the case of live broadcasts on Playchess.com
hundreds of computers will be following world class games in parallel and adding their
deep analyses to the "Let's Check" database. This function will become an
irreplaceable tool for openings analysis in the future."...

As a cheat detection tool (not what it was designed for) it suffers from a dangerous positive feedback loop from suspicion to guilt.
As a suspicion arises, more users target the suspect game for analysis and this will tend to increase the number of different engines offering their analysis, in turn this increases the numbers of potential move matches. 80% could rise to 90% and then 100% in a matter of days. The greater the number of observers the higher the magic guilt number becomes.

[dkappe]

As a cheat detection tool (not what it was designed for) it suffers from a dangerous positive feedback loop from suspicion to guilt.
As a suspicion arises, more users target the suspect game for analysis and this will tend to increase the number of different engines offering their analysis, in turn this increases the numbers of potential move matches. 80% could rise to 90% and then 100% in a matter of days. The greater the number of observers the higher the magic guilt number becomes.

There’s a win by Kasparov vs Nikolic, a long tactical battle, that has a 100% match. I think this confirms your hypothesis, given the sheer number of saved analyses on this game.

[supersharp77]

Breaking Chess News: Economics Professor and GM David Smerdon discusses The Risks of Using 'Lets Check Software' (Chessbase) for Cheat Detection!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiHHSZfoJ0A

[dkappe]

Breaking Chess News: Economics Professor and GM David Smerdon discusses The Risks of Using 'Lets Check Software' (Chessbase) for Cheat Detection!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiHHSZfoJ0A

TLDR: ChessBase says not to use it for that.

[M ANSARI]

I think on its own you shouldn't use it for cheat detection. But if you use it as one of many other factors it can't hurt. I mean you have to do it fairly and say if you use 3 engines ... those same engines should be used on everyone. Or if random engine are picked then the same random engines should be use for everyone. If someone sticks our by a huge margin ... like Hans did, then you take it from there and you check other things. There is no doubt in my mind that a cheater will have a certain signature ... how to find that signature might not be easy ... but also I don't think it is impossible. I do think the Chessbase thing is very primitive, but the idea might be a good idea if developed correctly and made in a way that is fair. On its own I don't think it should be used as the only metric.

[dkappe]

I think on its own you shouldn't use it for cheat detection.

I guess you haven’t listened to the snippet or read up on how the feature works. You have no control over which engines were used or at what depth. Your rationalization word salad is sounding more and more comical.

[M ANSARI]

I think on its own you shouldn't use it for cheat detection.

I guess you haven’t listened to the snippet or read up on how the feature works. You have no control over which engines were used or at what depth. Your rationalization word salad is sounding more and more comical.

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?

[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.