The IRONMAN Episode bothered me

Originally posted by Ragnorak
LOL. Its almost as if I'm reading the transcipt of a lawyer trying to fool a jury with loaded language and falsisms.

My initial post was not to accuse you of cheating. You brought my name up first saying that I had cooked my analysis. I posted the results of my analysis, your analysis and Arrakis' analysis to show that out of three different people ...[text shortened]... more people than me are seeing through your lies, and see you for the roach that you are.

D

Unlike you, I have given my EXACT SETTINGS and anyone with Fritz8 can run the game in the same manner I did and will get the same results. What are you hiding, Ragnorak?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
He sure did.

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=14
He also said 'The evidence therefore SUGGESTS that White might be using a chess program... but it PROVES that Black is! '

Who was white again?

D

and WHO was black? do you know the difference between the words "might" and " proves"

Originally posted by Ragnorak
LOL. Its almost as if I'm reading the transcipt of a lawyer trying to fool a jury with loaded language and falsisms.

My initial post was not to accuse you of cheating. You brought my name up first saying that I had cooked my analysis. I posted the results of my analysis, your analysis and Arrakis' analysis to show that out of three different people ...[text shortened]... more people than me are seeing through your lies, and see you for the roach that you are.

D

past experience

arrakis: I'll be glad to check it... but which game and which move? Your first game shows "10...a6xb5" which is not possible!
So just tell me which game you'd like me to look at and I'll get right back.

Ragnorak:
My bad. I cut out some fritz anotation from the first 13 moves as they were db, but I obviously snipped too much.

1. e4 c5 2. Ng1f3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nf3xd4 Ng8f6 5. Nb1c3 a6 6. Bc1g5 e6
7. f4 Qd8c7 8. Qd1f3 b5 9. f5 b4 10. Nc3b5 axb5

Originally posted by Ragnorak
He sure did.

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=14
He also said 'The evidence therefore SUGGESTS that White might be using a chess program... but it PROVES that Black is! '

Who was white again?

D

One more thing:

Here's arrakis' full post:

The game makes me sick to my stomach!

ALL MOVES ARE MATCHED AS BEST MOVE BY FRITZ UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qc7 8. Qf3
b5 9. f5 b4 10. Ncb5 axb5 11. Bxb5+ Bd7 12. fxe6 Bxb5 13. Nxb5 Qc5 14. Bxf6
fxe6 15. Nd4 gxf6 16. Nxe6 Qc4 17. Qxf6 Nd7 18. Nc7+ Qxc7 19. Qxh8 Qc5 20. Qxh7
Qe3+ 21. Kf1 O-O-O 22. Qh3 Qc5 {2nd choice} 23. Qd3 {2nd choice} Bg7 24. Ke2
Ne5 25. Qb3 {2nd choice} Nc4 26. Raf1 {2nd choice} Re8 27. Qh3+ Kb8 {2nd choice
} 28. Rf4 Bh6 29. Rhf1 Bxf4 30. Rxf4 Nxb2 31. Qb3 Nc4 32. Qd3 {No match} d5 33.
Rf5 {No match} Qg1 34. Qg3+ Kc8 35. Rxd5 Rxe4+ 36. Kd3 Re3+ 37. Kxc4 Rxg3 38.
hxg3 Qb1 39. Rd2 Qb2 40. Kb5 Kc7 41. g4 Qc3 42. Rd1 {2nd match} Qxc2 {2nd match
} 43. Rd4

No need to follow this game anymore. Black OBVIOUSLY used Fritz to play this game!

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is tiresome to continue to go over these lies of yours. I gave the EXACT settings on which I performed my analyis; a Fritz8Deluxe at 32MB, threshold at "0" and time at 60 seconds. Anyone can run my analysis for themselves who has a Fritz8. You have steadfastly refused to do so, using a different MB and threshold setting. You have also refused to pos ...[text shortened]... read you've repeated these tawdry lies. Don't you ever get sick of being such a pathetic fool?

Let's try to find some common ground guys... I really admire the both of you! 🙂

Ok, so while No1 states that HIS method is superior to mine... Well, his method might be a good method of cheating, but it's NOT the method cheaters use.

THEY (cheaters) do NOT take time to do analysis based on No1's findings... Therefore, a large percentage of what No1 wants to show as "proof" becomes irrelevant. 🙁

Now don't get me wrong, No1 probably does have proof of computer cheating, but he just doesn't know the proper method to display it. And to display the proof under the wrong environment is to lose the case! You should know this No1.

Ok, so the method I use to detect members cheating is the one that most cheaters use. They don't take the time to do a though analysis of the position. Heck, they are way over their heads in the game and just want a recommendation!

I stand by *my* method of detecting cheaters. I'd also like to mention that the constant bickering and slamming of other people in the forum serves no meaningful purpose.

Come on guys... let's work to make this a better site and stop abusing our mutual friends here!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah, we get it Shav; you don't care if people cheat on the site. Well, 90% of the people here do, as do (finally!) the Site Admins. So keep up your blathering about how everybody who doesn't want to be cheated is a Nazi; you're being an a**hole is old news.

90%??? Where did you get THAT figure?

Originally posted by lioyank
90%??? Where did you get THAT figure?

http://www.timeforchess.com/vote/result.php?voteid=2

Originally posted by arrakis
Let's try to find some common ground guys... I really admire the both of you! 🙂

Ok, so while No1 states that HIS method is superior to mine... Well, his method might be a good method of cheating, but it's NOT the method cheaters use.

THEY (cheaters) do NOT take time to do analysis based on No1's findings... Therefore, a large percentage of what No ...[text shortened]... Come on guys... let's work to make this a better site and stop abusing our mutual friends here!

I think you misunderstood me; I did mean to imply that engine users actually carefully examine the entire line given by Fritz or any other engine. I agree that few, if any, would. But I do think that it they are going to vary from the 1st choice occasionally to attempt to escape detection they won't use a second choice that is markedly inferior. Your method makes no distinction at first glance between someone using a 2nd choice that is .02 pawns different from one that is 2.00 pawns different. Thus, in this regard I think my method, which considers any move within .04 a match and any move above that difference as not a match, is superior in ID'ing BLATANT cheaters.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you misunderstood me; I did mean to imply that engine users actually carefully examine the entire line given by Fritz or any other engine. I agree that few, if any, would. But I do think that it they are going to vary from the 1st choice occasionally to attempt to escape detection they won't use a second choice that is markedly inferior. Your me ...[text shortened]... atch and any move above that difference as not a match, is superior in ID'ing BLATANT cheaters.

You can forget the percentages of matches based on + points. While I understand what you are trying to show, experience dictates that the "cheater" simply uses either the first or second move suggested from his/her chess engine. Keep in mind that THOSE TWO VARIATIONS are the product of extensive analysis by the program. Yeah, it's the best the program could come up with.

I commend you on your efforts to improve the site No1. But I think that there's a point where you need to back off a little on your "proof" and just let the game mods do their job.

Cheers,
Arrakis

Originally posted by arrakis
You can forget the percentages of matches based on + points. While I understand what you are trying to show, experience dictates that the "cheater" simply uses either the first or second move suggested from his/her chess engine. Keep in mind that THOSE TWO VARIATIONS are the product of extensive analysis by the program. Yeah, it's the best the program co ...[text shortened]... back off a little on your "proof" and just let the game mods do their job.

Cheers,
Arrakis

I already have. Posted in the "I Don't Care But" thread in the Clan forum on September 4:

I have kicked all non-CC members from the clan and do not intend to post any more game analyses. While I do not approve of the extreme secrecy of the Game Mod process, esp. kicking someone without giving a chance to respond to the evidence, I feel that the publishing of my analyses in the CC forum has fulfilled its purpose of spurring real action by the Game Mods and Site Admins. I still feel that the two members I have also named (besides the three who have already been kicked or left) are cheaters and am hopeful they also will be banned in the future. But that is up to the present Game Mods and Site Admins.

Originally posted by no1marauder
http://www.timeforchess.com/vote/result.php?voteid=2

that's just a link to a page where the community voted on whether or not they approve of having game mods. it was approved overwhelmingly, but nowhere does it say anything about 90% of the people on this site cheating. so i ask again, where did you get that figure?

Originally posted by lioyank
that's just a link to a page where the community voted on whether or not they approve of having game mods. it was approved overwhelmingly, but nowhere does it say anything about 90% of the people on this site cheating. so i ask again, where did you get that figure?

Learn how to read; I never said 90% of the people on the site cheat!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah, we get it Shav; you don't care if people cheat on the site. Well, 90% of the people here do, as do (finally!) the Site Admins.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Learn how to read; I never said 90% of the people on the site cheat!!

The dangling modifier ("90% of the people do" ) makes the sentence confusing. Perhaps you should work on your writing instead of attacking the readers.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The dangling modifier ("90% of the people do" ) makes the sentence confusing. Perhaps you should work on your writing instead of attacking the readers.

I assume English isn't your first language or you don't have one; the meaning of the two sentences is perfectly clear. If people are tooooooooo lazy to take the time to understand a perfectly clear sentence, that is their problem. I'm writing in an internet chess site forum not my term paper in 11th Grade English, so I don't give a crap about "dangling modifiers".

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The dangling modifier ("90% of the people do" ) makes the sentence confusing. Perhaps you should work on your writing instead of attacking the readers.

ah ,, but when you read the whole sentence its's perfectly clear the 90% is refering to people that do care.