07 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSomething like the Nuremberg trials or the Milosevic trial perhaps?
It is unfortunate that there are no International Law Mods.
But then suspected cheaters on an internet chess site, unlike genocidal maniacs, are not entitled to a defence.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starryknight14I wonder if the four people who have "rec'd" the first message in this thread would have done so if it read:
I am tired of all this BS about how cheaters dont have a chance to defend themselves, because they do... its called NOT CHEATING. Its that simple. They are banned due to overwhelming evidence, not just paranoia or a coin flip.
"I am tired of all this BS about how murderers don't have a chance to defend themselves, because they do... its called NOT KILLING. Its that simple. They are gassed due to overwhelming evidence, not just paranoia or a coin flip."
Simply idiotic.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 229947
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZGetting back to the thread!!
I assume you mean 12-14 ply. A ply is a half move. Therefore that's 6-7 full moves (both white and black).
Sometimes I do lots of analysis and calculation on a position. Occasionally I've spent an hour on a position. Most often however calculation for my moves isn't that in depth. I look for a plan. Can I create a weakness? Can I improve my piece dev ...[text shortened]... mes they aren't. Just because they aren't what the engine suggests doesn't mean they are bad.
Thanks for the informative response Xanthos. And I quite agree with you just cos a move is not the same as an engine would pick does not make it bad. But where move selection is always identical to an engine's selection it does make it cheating.
Re. the info about level's. Thanks, was not aware it was for half moves. But in mid game we are talking about the engine analysing every conceivable move available to a depth 7 moves for both black and white. Not something a human can do in an hour.
I feel that for someone to be excluded the evidence must be very strong and I fully support the site in the actions they take.
Cheats don't deserve the opportunity to defend themselves. They will almost certainly be back with a new name, until they get bored with being thrown off. They could however, request an over the table assessment of their chess skills if they are certain of their innocense.
Incidentally, I checked a game for one of those thrown off and found a move which really had me in fits. It was a pawn promotion where the engine reccommended two moves equally. This was due to the fact that the piece would be taken by the king anyway. However, the first in the list was to promote to a rook 2nd, with the same rating, promote to queen. The choice was rook!!! Also, every single move was no.1 rec. Except for move 1 as he was white!!
The evidence against these people is pretty solid.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by dottewellThat, of course, is not my personal point of view. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=28797
Something like the Nuremberg trials or the Milosevic trial perhaps?
But then suspected cheaters on an internet chess site, unlike genocidal maniacs, are not entitled to a defence.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starryknight14Why do morons never understand . . .
I am tired of all this BS about how cheaters dont have a chance to defend themselves, because they do... its called NOT CHEATING. Its that simple. They are banned due to overwhelming evidence, not just paranoia or a coin flip.
A suspect is not guilty until after they have had a chance to defend him/her self. Anything other than that is merely a witch hunt.
After all if the evidence of wrong doing was 100% certain, idiots like Tebb, Russ, Tmetzler and their chums would not fear a public trial. The fact that they hide behind closed doors says a great deal about their idea of fair play.
Anyway, the site will soon be back to "normal" Tebb at No. 1 and the King in the counting house
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by SirUlrichAre you sure the accused have not had a chance to defend themselves? Perhaps they were given a chance to do so in personal communications with the site administrators and game moderators. Just because there wasn't a "trial" in the forums, doesn't mean that there was not due process. Perhaps you ought to start using your head here. What reasons can you think of for not having an exhaustive discussion of the relevant evidence in these public forums?
Why do morons never understand . . .
A suspect is not guilty until after they have had a chance to defend him/her self. Anything other than that is merely a witch hunt.
After all if the evidence of wrong doing was 100% certain, idiots like Tebb, Russ, Tmetzler and their chums would not fear a public trial. The fact that they hide behind closed doors ...[text shortened]... nyway, the site will soon be back to "normal" Tebb at No. 1 and the King in the counting house
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrThere is a thread in the help (or is it the chess? i forget exactly...) forum from a friend of ironman who had been phoned by ironman asking him to ask the site why he couldn't move. IM may, however, have been contacted since, i don't know. But an e-mail explaining why at the time of them being removed would have been nice...
Are you sure the accused have not had a chance to defend themselves? Perhaps they were given a chance to do so in personal communications with the site administrators and game moderators. Just because there wasn't a "trial" in the forums, doesn't mean that there was not due process. Perhaps you ought to start using your head here. What reasons can you ...[text shortened]... for [b]not having an exhaustive discussion of the relevant evidence in these public forums?[/b]
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starryknight14HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Actually my response is that i voted for Bush and have no regrets as to what happened in Iraq. I feel he did what was necessary, which is the reason i voted for him. It is regrettable that innocent people were killed but he didnt target those people and I feel the Ends justified the means. In other words it was for the greater good.
Wait, you're serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
10 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starryknight14A lot of people did vote for Bush, it's just not something people generally admit to in front of an international audience.
Alot of people voted for Bush. Im just not afraid to admit that I voted for someone who does something "contravercial". Dont laugh like an idiot, you probably are in over your head as soon as you leave what you learned from posts on this site.