3 ms·
In a similar way that the best chess engine developer is not the best chess player there's little reason to think that the best person to detect chess engine us
by Tenoke 4y ago
In a similar way that the best chess engine developer is not the best chess player there's little reason to think that the best person to detect chess engine use is the best player.
- radiator 4y agoIndeed there is every reason. The hardest part is to understand the game of chess. As i wrote, it includes having the entire tree of variations for every position in your mind while investigating. It is absolutely not a matter of simply comparing one-dimensional engine evaluations.
- Tenoke 4y agoNo, the hardest part is likely to understand statistics, have data on cheaters and non-cheaters, analyze the differences, develop and test your methods on validation data, iterate on your process etc. >includes having the entire tree of variations for every position in your mind while investigating Too bad even Magnus can't do that and the closest you can get is by writing software to do it for you.
- radiator 4y agoI do not even understand what it is that you think Carlsen cannot do. But every master can do it for one position at a time. Then he just analyses a number of positions, from Niemann's games and reaches a conclusion. You did not describe the algorithm or the data which would help writing the software you are talking about. As I said, for me if this software would be based on comparing the engine's best move with the human's move and give such metrics as average centipawn loss, it would not be nearly adequate for this purpose. And I insist that all the things you described as the hardest part are only poor substitutes for understanding the game of chess.