06 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou can't be 100% sure but it all depends on where the thresholds are set. For instance, fischerov was the most blatant guy I've reported so far.
100% is an exaggeration. It's ridiculous to demand 100% certainty. Not even trials for murder require 100% certainty, but 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Top 1 Match: 160/203 (78,8% )
Top 2 Match: 183/203 (90,1% )
Top 3 Match: 188/203 (92,6% )
from Tournament 1397 is rather damning evidence I'd say.
You'd have to abandom games moderation completely if you don't remove users like this.
I'm analysing all games from Fischer-Spassky 1972 to give some sort of yardstick as to what a human can achieve at the absolute top of their game.
I'm using exactly the same analysis methods as usual & will post the results in the open forum in the next few days.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderLike the guy on page 2 of player tables who got
...I know a bit about the procedures used. If anything, the present ones are overly stringent and too many blatant cheats don't get bounced...
Top 1 Match: 285/441 (64,6% )
Top 2 Match: 359/441 (81,4% )
Top 3 Match: 394/441 (89,3% )
& is still here, perhaps?
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonHave you ever met this person? Talked to him in person, face to face? Played against him face to face? If not, you have no reason to assume that he is or is not telling the truth about himself, this place or anything else. It is even possible he is not the same person who was banned here. On the internet you can be whoever and whatever you like.
Because he is, simple as that.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by KeplerTalked with him on the phone, as have a few people from here.
Have you ever met this person? Talked to him in person, face to face? Played against him face to face? If not, you have no reason to assume that he is or is not telling the truth about himself, this place or anything else. It is even possible he is not the same person who was banned here. On the internet you can be whoever and whatever you like.
His opening knowledge and theory and also his memorization of famous games and all was pretty dang convincing for me.
If he was that good of a B.S. artist as all of you say the guy would have a job in Washington.
Alot of people know there were other reasons. If I am not mstaken he said that people were screaming for him to be banned right off the bat for 3a, when that didn't work and I guess he never said anything even worthy of a forum ban so 3c was not an option, 3b was the only way to get rid of the guy.
Simple as that.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by KeplerOne of my favorites was a 1000 or so rated user defending Ironman or some other user who was removed when RHP started checking for cheats.
Have you ever met this person? Talked to him in person, face to face? Played against him face to face? If not, you have no reason to assume that he is or is not telling the truth about himself, this place or anything else. It is even possible he is not the same person who was banned here. On the internet you can be whoever and whatever you like.
"I went to their house and they had me beat in 17 moves or so. He had several chess books and chess boards. There is no way in my mind they needed to cheat".
Good times.
P-
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by CartersonWhy don't you meet him some time for OTB if you get the chance. You're rating of near 1500 would squash him.
Talked with him on the phone, as have a few people from here.
His opening knowledge and theory and also his memorization of famous games and all was pretty dang convincing for me.
If he was that good of a B.S. artist as all of you say the guy would have a job in Washington.
Alot of people know there were other reasons. If I am not mstaken he said ...[text shortened]... orum ban so 3c was not an option, 3b was the only way to get rid of the guy.
Simple as that.
Who's to say he wasn't sitting in front of his data on the phone?
P-