[colechristensen]

High level humans and chess engines play differently. You can see commentary on chess YouTube videos when they run across cheaters.

Also the chess engines people use are accessible, you can compare what a suspected cheater does with what the cheater does and if they’re exactly the same consistently, you have a pretty strong signal.

One of the bigger tells are strange moves that set up a many move series resulting in a victory, things that humans just can’t find quickly.

[toolslive]

It's not that simple. I'm an amateur player (2200 at lichess) but there are plenty of situations where I simply _know_ the best variation. Plenty of chess players analyze their own games using an engine and then use their memory when they are confronted with the same position. The same with opening theory: when I'm using my opening preparation, I'm playing at GM level as these are just the moves played by GMs in that position, and I did not need to find/calculate them, I just know them.

[Kranar]

This is a very strong claim that is almost certainly false.

Would you be willing to reveal your account so that it can be independently verified? For example I'm 2116 on lichess and looking over the last 10 opponents who are in the neighborhood of 2200, it is never the case that their moves are optimal compared to a chess engine. For the first 10 or so moves yeah sure, just play a book opening, but beyond that people at 2200 make plenty of mistakes every single game including blunders.

The idea that you can consistently make optimal moves over the course of a 30-40 move game beyond the book opening requires some kind of evidence because in examining the last 10 games of 10 accounts arbitrarily picked, there isn't a single one that isn't absolutely full of inaccuracies and mistakes.

[toolslive]

Sure, I blunder and I never claimed it to be always the case, but sometimes I know a tree of variations really deep, just because I remembered it from looking at it together with a computer. Anyway, here's my account on lichess: toolslive

[mwt]

Your explanation doesn't really distinguish high-level human play (not obvious cheating) from engine play (obvious cheating). There are probably plenty of games in which your first 20 moves (or 5-10 for me) are in GM databases and evaluated favorably by the engine, ass a 2200 you're probably booked up pretty well. But you know computer moves aren't so common in openings; they're much more common in complex middlegames and late games when the computer can calculate more combinations that we can and is able to produce lines that break intuition and principles but are strictly best.

[toolslive]

My point is that high level human play online can be caused by computer analysis offline. One cannot observe a difference, as the moves are exactly the same.

[mwt]

But for the vast majority of players there will be a difference in computer lines and human evaluation; even if you're playing a strong game there is still a world of difference between 2500 lichess and ~3300 FIDE stockfish. This is more true for the median ~1500 lichess player. Even if you put two GMs up against each other and give one a computer, some portion of games would include an obvious computer line that a ~2800 FIDE human wouldn't evaluate the same way as an engine.

[tzs]

> The same with opening theory: when I'm using my opening preparation, I'm playing at GM level as these are just the moves played by GMs in that position, and I did not need to find/calculate them, I just know them.

I wouldn't count that as playing the opening at GM level unless you understand why GMs play those moves.

Around 1990 there was a chess teacher and coach named Richard Shorman that would come to a public chess club that met weekly in Sunnyvale and give free advice to people who had hit plateaus and just couldn't seem to get better no matter how much they played and studied and analyzed. People would show him their games from recent tournaments and he'd analyze them and give advice to get unstuck. This was all out in the open so even those of us who had not brought games could watch and learn.

The people attending these sessions typically ranged from beginners who if they were rated were somewhere under 1000 USCF all the way to people in the 2000-2200 range who had been stuck in that range for years.

On of the big problems Shorman found with pretty much everyone there was that everyone wanted to play like a Karpov or a Kasparov. They studied the opening such players played, memorized all the variants of those openings from ECO, bought and read books on those openings, and studied the games with those openings from top tournaments.

So yeah...they might play 25 moves of a game just like Karpov or Kasparov would have because they are copying from a Karpov of Kasparov game that followed the same line. But what happens when their opponent plays a bad move? If it is so bad there is an immediate tactical refutation maybe they find that (especially if they are around 2100). But at the Karpov/Kasparov level there are a lot of bad moves where the move isn't bad for some short term tactical reason. It's bad because it gives some small weakness that a GM over the course of the next 20 or 30 moves can exploit to eventually allow some winning tactic.

And if your opponent does stay in your opening book to the end...then you just find yourself in a position that is supposed to be good for you, but without knowing why. A GM would know why they are better and how to use that.

It always does eventually come down to tactics, but the deeper you understand tactics the more you start to understand positional concepts and how they make it so certain tactics will or will not work. You can't really understand the positional stuff until you understand the tactical stuff. When you try to play like a GM too soon, you don't yet have the tactical skill to understand the positional stuff, and you get stuck.

One way Shorman put it was something like "Before you can play good chess you have to be good at playing bad chess".

For the lower rated players Shorman would tell them to play gambits. They might not be sound against high rated players but that's not who lower rated players are playing. They should be aiming for unbalanced positions and playing the most aggressive moves that they can't see a tactical refutation for.

As for books, what he'd tell the lower rated players to get was a collection of Morphy's games and skip to the end where it has the games where he gave odds or was playing simuls against amateurs--the games where Morphy needed to crush people.

That's what he meant by "bad chess"...the kind of chess people played in the 19th century.

For higher rated people, like a couple friends of mine who were stuck around 2000-2100, he'd still tell them to play unbalanced openings and play aggressively, but not in the balls out channeling Morphy way that worked for the lower rated people. Gambits were still recommended, but now ones that were not played at top level because the other side could equalize or get a slight advantage too easy rather than because they might actually be unsound.

That got both my friends off the long standing plateaus.

I was only around 1600, and wasn't playing tournament chess anymore (I was instead playing in Go events at the Palo Alto Go Club), so never got a chance to see if Shorman could get me unstuck, but I brought a list of my chess books to Shorman to see which if any I should actually read.

Younger chess players might not realize just how many chess books even casual chess players would accumulate back in the days before internet. Here was my list [1], and this was by no means a large collection for someone around 1600.

Shorman praised a few of them as good books that could teach a lot--and then told me to set them aside and read specific ones of them such as "My System" whenever I hit 2200, and in the meantime go get Morphy's games and skip to the odds games. (I never did get back into tournament chess, except for a couple of events).

I think Shorman's points and methods are still sound, but now with internet and online chess and computers that can automatically generate tactics training from real games we can probably go about applying them more efficiently.

We don't have to seek unbalanced positions and play aggressively in them in order to get tactical practice now--we've got tactics trainers. And now we can play more serious games against good opponents in a week then we might be able to get in a whole year of tournaments in 1990.

[1] https://pastebin.com/mw3q1784

[mwt]

> everyone wanted to play like a Karpov or a Kasparov.

I wonder if there's a modern analog to this with how super GM styles have mostly converged. Trying to play like Magnus is as silly as trying to play like an engine. Even the most aggressive players (Nepo, Shak?, Rapport) aren't so wildly different in style.

Maybe the 2010-2020s version of this is bandwagoning onto popular theory, like all the Najdorf lines I know I'll never understand.

[wolverine876]

> High level humans and chess engines play differently. You can see commentary on chess YouTube videos when they run across cheaters.

That's similar to people describing how to catch other frauds, such as fake Amazon comments or bots. It's medieval 'science': They usually have no evidence of their accuracy, either false negatives (frauds who they overlook) and false positives (people falsely accused of fraud). So it's easy to say, 'this is how to identify them' - nobody will ever test your claim.

Regarding false negatives, for example, there is reason to believe that people detect only the obvious frauds, and that our detection becomes tuned for the obvious. Regarding false positives, people will cite the 'obvious' positives - e.g., some humanly impossible property - but even if they are correct, the problem is the cases in the grey area. False accusations are no joke.

Ironically, now we want a bot to solve our problems. What data do we have to say that it's accurate, or any more accurate than we are?

[mintplant]

> It's medieval 'science': They usually have no evidence of their accuracy,

I mean, not really. The difference between human and computer chess play-styles is well-documented, to the extent that in the earlier days of chess engines, human chess disciplines were developed to counter the way computers play ("anti-computer chess").

[robbintt]

If it makes you feel better (or worse), signal "fingerprinting" is used in laboratory science to verify things like purity and identity. Detecting a lack of divergence from a known chess bot seems like a good fingerprint to me.

[than3]

People have been asking for a transparency report to verify accuracy for various countermeasures for awhile. The platforms simply won't release that kind of information (chess.com & lichess.com)

They have an incentive to show their game isn't a den of cheaters, and yet they don't release which means there is a stronger incentive to hide that information.

Makes you wonder what kind of incentives are preventing them from releasing that information. Marketing says 100's of millions of games. Are they games between two people, or potentially a lot of matches against computers (where you don't know they are computers up front). Food for thought.

[ConstantVigil]

Thing is... if your methods work well enough to help you avoid the thing you wish to avoid; does it matter if it's right or wrong? It works, right?

[wolverine876]

> if your methods work well enough to help you avoid the thing you wish to avoid; does it matter if it's right or wrong?

You don't know if it's helping you at all; that's the issue. The latter question is a bit bizarre.