if ironman can give proof he is genuine ...

Originally posted by Delmer
I do not personally see how anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is cheating at internet chess.

Did you know that they can pick up enough DNA to do a match after a person walks round a room for 10 seconds without touching anything?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Did you know that they can pick up enough DNA to do a match after a person walks round a room for 10 seconds without touching anything?

If you can demonstrate for me how a person can walk around a room for 10 seconds without touching anything I promise to spend next week pondering the relationship to internet chess cheating.

Originally posted by Delmer
If you can demonstrate for me how a person can walk around a room for 10 seconds without touching anything I promise to spend next week pondering the relationship to internet chess cheating.

Without touching anything left in the room that would give transfer. Obviously they are wearing shoes and clothes, the shoes would touch the floor.

EDIT: The link being that just because you don't see a way that conclusive evidence can be found doesn't mean there isn't one, or more than one.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Without touching anything left in the room that would give transfer. Obviously they are wearing shoes and clothes, the shoes would touch the floor.

EDIT: The link being that just because you don't see a way that conclusive evidence can be found doesn't mean there isn't one, or more than one.

I'll take your word for the DNA example, though it seems a stretch. And, of course, I may be wrong about conclusive, concrete evidence in regard to internet chess cheating. But where is it? Possibly it was presented somewhere and I didn't see it. If so, point me in that direction.

Edit: and obviously something is transferring DNA from X to Y in your example.

Originally posted by Delmer
I'll take your word for the DNA example, though it seems a stretch. And, of course, I may be wrong about conclusive, concrete evidence in regard to internet chess cheating. But where is it? Possibly it was presented somewhere and I didn't see it. If so, point me in that direction.

Edit: and obviously something is transferring DNA from X to Y in your example.

As is said earlier in this very thread, the evidence is not released as it would allow future cheaters to avoid the techniques the Game Mods use making them useless.

EDIT: Of course something is transferring the DNA. There's this thing called air.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
As is said earlier in this very thread, the evidence is not released as it would allow future cheaters to avoid the techniques the Game Mods use making them useless.

EDIT: Of course something is transferring the DNA. There's this thing called air.

And you're comfortable with that?

Edit: I believe you stated: "Without touching anything left in the room that would give transfer." Seems obvious to me that such a statement rules out air.

Originally posted by Delmer
And you're comfortable with that?

Edit: I believe you stated: "Without touching anything left in the room that would give transfer." Seems obvious to me that such a statement rules out air.

If you don't want to read the thread where I answered this exact question then I can't help you that much.

EDIT: Yes he walked round the room without touching anything at all including the air. It was quite amazing to watch. 😠

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If you don't want to read the thread where I answered this exact question then I can't help you that much.

EDIT: Yes he walked round the room without touching anything at all including the air. It was quite amazing to watch. 😠

If you make absolute statements, expect people to take them in the same manner in which you make them.

From reading this thread I take it that you do feel comfortable with someone being banned without proof made public.

I wonder who's next?

Originally posted by Delmer
If you make absolute statements, expect people to take them in the same manner in which you make them.

From reading this thread I take it that you do feel comfortable with someone being banned without proof made public.

I wonder who's next?

It could be anyone.

Anyone who, you know, is cheating.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
It could be anyone.

Anyone who, you know, is cheating.

According to the Mods...

Originally posted by leestatic
He apparently is a FIDE arbiter, if they have it on record that he is an exceptional player through past live games before he became a ref then i should imagine that's enough proof.
but i think he's had enough time to dispute the ban.

This is a good point. Perhaps he has played in tournaments and has games on chessbase or some such site. If this is the case then those games would also display computerish match ups, would they not??

Originally posted by Delmer
... I do not personally see how anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is cheating at internet chess. And I do not see what defense can possibly be presented once someone is accused.

you need to learn an awful lot ... including imagination and confidence.

for 1 ... have a look at shredder9uci (mind you i actually support that particular honest player)

as for defence ...imagine if someone accused tebb of playing much too strongly to be a human (you, i and 99.99% of humans find his play far too accurate) ... then he can just refer us to fide, where he has a rating similar to what he has at rhp - while playing otb, 2300+ is what we can expect of tebb.

Originally posted by flexmore

as for defence ...imagine if someone accused tebb of playing much too strongly to be a human (you, i and 99.99% of humans find his play far too accurate) ... then he can just refer us to fide, where he has a rating similar to what he has at rhp - while playing otb, 2300+ is what we can expect of tebb.

Anyone who actually compares Tebb's moves to an engine finds good evidence that he isn't a cheater. He makes moves that an engine wouldn't dream of. Good moves.

Originally posted by flexmore
you need to learn an awful lot ... including imagination and confidence.

for 1 ... have a look at shredder9uci (mind you i actually support that particular honest player)

as for defence ...imagine if someone accused tebb of playing much too strongly to be a human (you, i and 99.99% of humans find his play far too accurate) ... then he can just refer u ...[text shortened]... a rating similar to what he has at rhp - while playing otb, 2300+ is what we can expect of tebb.

I guess all you have to do is show me the proof that Ironman was cheating and show me how you completely ruled out coincidence and/or good play if his moves mirrored a computer program.

Originally posted by flexmore
as a hypothetical ... please do not debate whether ironman is a human or a computer ... this thread is about rhp's response if [b]he can prove that he is a human.

should he be allowed back?
if so then how?[/b]

Judging from his level of play it would only take his full name and a check for the same on the FIDE rating list.
I have played several FIDE masters and his play was stronger.