13 Sep 03
Originally posted by geniusXenaphobe and the figs were parodies of cheaters: they cheated in such a blatant and obvious way so as to point out that many players were doing the same, only more subtly. Some of the posts they generated were pretty funny 😀
and there was once a fig in the top 20 (check out the thread entitled "fig in the top 20"...)
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
13 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteAcolyte, are you Xenophobe?
Xenaphobe and the figs were parodies of cheaters: they cheated in such a blatant and obvious way so as to point out that many players were doing the same, only more subtly. Some of the posts they generated were pretty funny 😀
I remember reading your post of September 2002, in which you confessed to being the infamous one. Were you telling the truth, or was it an elaborate joke?
Dave
13 Sep 03
Originally posted by MadKnightUnless specifically asked to by the site admin, I would not accuse anyone of cheating. But to think it doesn't happen is plain silly. For example, one of my opponents (who will remain nameless - but I will watch his games) is using a certain program IN ALL HIS GAMES - I know because I have analysed them and even know the program he is using, this is not paranoia - but fact.
I just joined this site but I have played in other sites
and it is always the same. People worry about cheaters.
I have been playing chess since 1957 and have been
a member of USCF for almost that many years. My
rating with them is quite high but I am sure there
will be people always wondering. Since the dawn of
internet/email chess there is too ...[text shortened]... ue as well. 😉 I always assume my opponent
is human to do otherwise I may as well not play.
As it is I'm enjoying my games, I don't get upset if I lose, much.
13 Sep 03
Originally posted by AcolyteCalm down,calm down.(Sorry David but I could not resist)
Xenaphobe and the figs were parodies of cheaters: they cheated in such a blatant and obvious way so as to point out that many players were doing the same, only more subtly. Some of the posts they generated were pretty funny 😀
I still think Liverpool is in Lancashire.Sorry.Sorry too you are other side of the Mersey.
David Tebb is a player. I can see why people want to drag him in.
David Tebb is an honest player.
Lyn.
14 Sep 03
I am not very good, at this game. I certainly do not use programs to help me win. For that matter, I dont win very often. I dont see the point in cheating on a public site. If I wanted to play a computer, I would do just that.
But how can you really tell if someone is cheating? What if they know the sequence of moves that works? Apparently David Tebb does. And no one doubts his skill. And if they really are cheating all the time, shouldnt they be the #1 player on the site?
Jonathan
14 Sep 03
Originally posted by David TebbNote that Acolyte referred to "XenAphobe", whom he seems to identify as an alternate user used to parody figs. You referred to "XenOphobe", who apparently generated some controversy but wasn't (?) a cheat.
Acolyte, are you Xenophobe?
I remember reading your post of September 2002, in which you confessed to being the infamous one. Were you telling the truth, or was it an elaborate joke?
Dave
14 Sep 03
Originally posted by fulcherjlI think that some players here are better than the Chess Programs people use, or am I not correct on this?
I am not very good, at this game. I certainly do not use programs to help me win. For that matter, I dont win very often. I dont see the point in cheating on a public site. If I wanted to play a computer, I would do just that.
But how can you really tell if someone is cheating? What if they know the sequence of moves that works? Apparently David T ...[text shortened]... eally are cheating all the time, shouldnt they be the #1 player on the site?
Jonathan
Olav
14 Sep 03
Originally posted by LivingLegendYes, and David is one of those. As for how do you tell the difference, it's not always clear cut, but, lower ranked players generally make errors in play. Also many computer chess programs are very limited in their approach to 'creative' play (as generally they work on a +/- system) so they can be caught out by sacrifices/creative playing by the human opponent.
I think that some players here are better than the Chess Programs people use, or am I not correct on this?
Olav
Spotting a cheat is relatively straightforward (espescially if you happen to have access from your son's computer to the programs they are using). In the MANY games I analysed by this sites biggest cheat his moves followed the program exactly until he had got into an unassailable position, then he cleverly switches to open play.
I would expect someone like David Tebb to have a good record, but this player is outstanding!! OK that's enough, I'll say no more.
14 Sep 03
Originally posted by AcolyteAren't fig leaves used to hide one's shame though?
I wouldn't ban cheaters, but make them wear a Mark of Shame next to their name (where the star normally goes; I'm sure someone can think of a good mark.) Then everyone would know they had cheated, but it would give them a chance of mending their ways, rather than just cheating on another chess site.
14 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenOh dear, the history of it all has become muddled already (no offence RC, you can only go on what you've heard.) At one point, Xenophobe was at the top of the scoreboard, when someone called Xenaphobe appeared in the top 20 using a method of cheating so obvious that it would immediately be noticed. Later, the feat was repeated by the 'figs'. For some reason, the word 'fig' stuck to describe this form of cheating, but Xenaphobe (and, by an amusing coincidence, XenOphobe) got there first. If only Xenaphobe had thought of a better name...
Note that Acolyte referred to "XenAphobe", whom he seems to identify as an alternate user used to parody figs. You referred to "XenOphobe", who apparently generated some controversy but wasn't (?) a cheat.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
15 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenOops! I hadn't realised (or forgotten) there was a character called 'Xenaphobe', assuming this was a miss-spelling of 'Xenophobe'. I do remember someone called 'Xenophile', who Xenophobe didn't like, for obvious reasons. Although Xenaphobe was probably quite friendly to him 😉
Note that Acolyte referred to "XenAphobe", whom he seems to identify as an alternate user used to parody figs. You referred to "XenOphobe", who apparently generated some controversy but wasn't (?) a cheat.
Dave
15 Sep 03
I have been playing at www.chessclub (until my free time ran out!) and when you join U are asked "do u use a computer to decide moves' (not databases, that is a seperate issue) This is a great idea so up right up front you know who or what your up against. Personally I chose not to use a computer & the games I had were the best since we all make mistakes. It was more fun trying to work out how clever your opponent was. On my short time on this site I believe that I have been hit with the computer every now & then & it is frustrating since it makes me want to hit them right back with a better computer and shamefully that is what I have done. For that I apologise. Maybe we should have a voluntary tag that says you use 'will use a computer' or promise on a stack of bibles 'I will not use a computer to decide my moves'. I will make that promise publicly right now.🙂
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
15 Sep 03
Originally posted by fulcherjlThanks, but if I knew a sequence of moves that worked in every game, I would never lose. Not even Kasparov has that gift.
But how can you really tell if someone is cheating? What if they know the sequence of moves that works? Apparently David Tebb does. And no one doubts his skill. And if they really are cheating all the time, shouldnt they be the #1 player on the site?
Jonathan
But I have no doubt that an average strength player with a powerful computer, a chess program, and plenty of time on their hands, could easily overtake me at the top of RHP. If someone wishes to do that, there's not much anyone could do to stop it. However, it's unlikey that the limited satisfaction they gain from this 'achievement' would be worth the effort.
Dave