Cludi Deciding to Leave

Originally posted by Nordlys
There are actually three of them, and the highest-rated one has a rating of 1691 (http://www.dsu.dk/index.php?id=56&fornavn=Claus&efternavn=Jensen&klub=&min_rating=&max_rating=&kreds=-1). You somehow ended up with the list of senior players. Not that it makes much of a difference. But anyway, the ratings only go back to 1995, and according to this part of hi ...[text shortened]... .clausjensen.com/?page_id=2 it sounds like he didn't play OTB tournaments anymore at that time.

You're right; not being able to read Danish is kind of a disadvantage on that site!

I thought Cludi had posted at some point he was still part of a club. I'll check.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess you just refuse to answer the points raised and revert to hysterical ramblings.

Do I think it is OK to send a PM to Player C saying Player B is an engine user? Yes, I've done it quite often and have received numerous PM's saying the same thing as well. How that is "harassing" Player B is beyond my comprehension.

...[text shortened]... use will recommence. That is what the vast majority of people here want even if you don't.

no1 I think we can agree on several things, but some of your points just does'nt make any sence to me.

1) I hope for your sake that the only accusations you have sent regarding engine users are sent to the admins. Starting rumors without prove is not very wise !!!

2) I don't know what world you're living in. Where I come from we do it like this:
If I have a suspecion that a person is acting against the rules. I report this person to the authorities.
When I have not heard anything after X weeks and I don't know what is happening I don't take the next step by contacting others saying I have prove that the person is acting against the rules.
No I will have to wait - maybe I will contact the authorities asking what is happining, but I will have no urge to do anything because justice will prevale.

Starting rumors and sending messages undermining other peoples credibility behind their back without giving them a chance to defend themself by telling their side of the story is a cowardly act - nothing more - nothing less !!!

Originally posted by Richardt Hansen
... a chance to defend themself by telling their side of the story is a cowardly act - nothing more - nothing less !!![/b]

The RHP forums are still open to Cludi, I believe he is still a playing member of this site! But he says he prefers to make his comments on his blog where they cannot be moderated.

Originally posted by Pawn Qween
The RHP forums are still open to Cludi, I believe he is still a playing member of this site! But he says he prefers to make his comments on his blog where they cannot be moderated.

Jesus the PM's and the rumors was started a long time ago - and as you know it is hard to defend yourself against rumors !!! Cludi did not know that PM's were being sent from a high distinguished player.

I must say that if I started recieving messges from one of the highest distinguished players telling me that he had evidence of someone else being a cheater I would probaly belive it .....

And that is just what has happened - by default many people are beliving the rumors about Cludi (and I don't blame them) - and now he has the hard task of trying to convince them that he is innocent - where it should be the other way around (in my oppinion).

Originally posted by Richardt Hansen
no1 I think we can agree on several things, but some of your points just does'nt make any sence to me.

1) I hope for your sake that the only accusations you have sent regarding engine users are sent to the admins. Starting rumors without prove is not very wise !!!

2) I don't know what world you're living in. Where I come from we do it like this self by telling their side of the story is a cowardly act - nothing more - nothing less !!!

I really don't much care what you think. I'm often asked to look at a certain player's game by other players and give my opinion whether that player is an engine user. When I have the time, I accommodate such requests. There are a lot of people here who don't want to play engines and will avoid it if possible. The Site Admins and Game Mods have been historically slow to the point of glaciers of banning cheats even when guilt is painfully obvious; if I can help a player avoid being cheated I'm happy to do so. And I am grateful when people do the same for me.

If this site allowed me to directly confront users who I thought were engine users with my game analyses that provided the evidence, I would. Unfortunately, PMing them directly with such evidence, no matter how strong, would likely lead to a 3(c). I do not think that publishing evidence that someone is an engine cheat is "cowardly"; your moral values, which make the protection of suspected cheaters by suppressing the evidence against them from being viewed by their past, present and future victims, is abhorrent to me.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
We found that the match-up rates of pre-computer era CC GMs and modem OTB GMs are very similar. Even super GMs are only about a percentage point or so higher than the norm. All strong verifiably human play exists in quite a tight band.

For matching just the top move, over many games, you are looking at a control stat of 50%-60% depending on the natur ...[text shortened]... l data.

But I do admit it would be an interesting exercise to see if we'd ban them here.

I think another factor worth considering is that most games between pre-computer era CC GMs will have been complex well-played games between players of roughly similar strength. Quite a few games on RHP are played between players of considerably different strength, where the stronger player wins in a simple, straight-forward manner. This may affect match-up rates.

Originally posted by no1marauder
..... I thought were engine users with my game analyses that provided the evidence, I would. Unfortunately, PMing them directly with such evidence, no matter how strong, would likely lead to a 3(c). I do not think that publishing evidence that someone is an engine cheat is "cowardly"; your moral values, which make the protection of suspected cheaters by ...[text shortened]... against them from being viewed by their past, present and future victims, is abhorrent to me.

Clearly you think that it is ok to take the law into your own hands if you think the law is not working - what are you ? God ?

You have to apply the same rules as everyone else - unless you would prefer a chaos state where everyone is defining their own set of rules.

Talking behind someones back and spreading rumors is ALWAYS a cowardly act - no matter how right you think you are. And espacially in this case were the "proof" is a extremly subjective interpetasion of "facts".

Originally posted by Northern Lad
I think another factor worth considering is that most games between pre-computer era CC GMs will have been complex well-played games between players of roughly similar strength. Quite a few games on RHP are played between players of considerably different strength, where the stronger player wins in a simple, straight-forward manner. This may affect match-up rates.

I agree - its much easier to make good moves against opponent who does not cause you problems, who does not make you to made mistakes.

Originally posted by Korch
I agree - its much easier to make good moves against opponent who does not cause you problems, who does not make you to made mistakes.

I will back korch up on that, he does it me, and easily, everytime I play him 😛

Originally posted by Northern Lad
I think another factor worth considering is that most games between pre-computer era CC GMs will have been complex well-played games between players of roughly similar strength. Quite a few games on RHP are played between players of considerably different strength, where the stronger player wins in a simple, straight-forward manner. This may affect match-up rates.

Excellent point. but mitigated in several ways:

Most importantly, the nature of each game/move is essential to arriving at expected match-up rates. Tight, strategic battles with many strong candidate moves will produce a much lower expectation than sharp tactical action where there are fewer strong candidates. For first choices only, the expected match-up for a game can be as low 30% or as high as 80%. That's why analyzing a single game is often so misleading.

Other ways to mitigate the issue you raise involves the game selection criteria, but I really can't say too much about that without revealing information that would be useful to someone wishing to avoid detection.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Excellent point. but mitigated in several ways:

Most importantly, the nature of each game/move is essential to arriving at expected match-up rates. Tight, strategic battles with many strong candidate moves will produce a much lower expectation than sharp tactical action where there are fewer strong candidates. For first choices only, the expected mat ...[text shortened]... that without revealing information that would be useful to someone wishing to avoid detection.

Ok...now maybe I am not understanding this all but I have a few questions that I hope will be answered.

The only "engine" I have is an old copy of Chessmaster that won't even work on my laptop.

I do however own the Informant database package and it supplies me with all I need...well as well as Chessopolis.com

After hearing all of this stuff one of the guys that I go to school with and plays regular tourneys owns a copy of Fritz...so I sent him over some of my games from here...and amazingly enough...not only were alot of my moves the same fritz made...but also my opponents.

Now I know i did not use an engine and would never accuse them of it either.

So I asked him about it and he told me that basically all fritz is is just a ton of games stuck into a computer and it does a search through all of the games to find a good position.

So...when i search my database with a certain position or opening and it finds a game that corresponds...I do not see the difference I guess.

Like i said...I do not own one of the good engines so I have no clue. Because if I relied on Chessmaster 5000 I don't think I would EVER have done very good here.

Dave

Originally posted by nmdavidb
Ok...now maybe I am not understanding this all but I have a few questions that I hope will be answered.

The only "engine" I have is an old copy of Chessmaster that won't even work on my laptop.

I do however own the Informant database package and it supplies me with all I need...well as well as Chessopolis.com

After hearing all of this stuff one of ...[text shortened]... f I relied on Chessmaster 5000 I don't think I would EVER have done very good here.

Dave

You can use games databases with Fritz (or more correctly, Chessbase game databases), but the Fritz engine actually calculates what it considers to be the best moves based on search and evaluation criteria that has been programmed into the engine. So either you misunderstood your friend, or he has no idea how a chess engine works.

Edit - Also, almost all engines can use opening books, which are opening moves that have previously been determined to be acceptable. But at some point, the engine gets to the end of the opening book and has to start calculating on its own.

Originally posted by nmdavidb
So I asked him about it and he told me that basically all fritz is is just a ton of games stuck into a computer and it does a search through all of the games to find a good position.

nothing like that. engines just examine every possible legal move, especially the irrelevant ones (because they can't tell the difference between a candidate move and pointless moves). after every move they'll evaluate the reached position with fixed values (a pawn = +1.00, a doubled pawn = +0.80, bishop = +3.27, a controlled square = +0.05 etc.), add everything up, and recommend the move that scores the highest.

Originally posted by nmdavidb
Ok...now maybe I am not understanding this all but I have a few questions that I hope will be answered.

The only "engine" I have is an old copy of Chessmaster that won't even work on my laptop.

I do however own the Informant database package and it supplies me with all I need...well as well as Chessopolis.com

After hearing all of this stuff one of ...[text shortened]... f I relied on Chessmaster 5000 I don't think I would EVER have done very good here.

Dave

I believe if you are both using a database for your opening moves, you could quite possibly get quite an amount of moves in before leaving the database.

I never use a database or book openings, only what I know from memory which is very limited, so I am fairly sure in most games I would be out of the database or book opening my opponent is using by moves 6-10...Then hopefully we are both without any help for the remainder of the game !!

Originally posted by Richardt Hansen
Clearly you think that it is ok to take the law into your own hands if you think the law is not working - what are you ? God ?

You have to apply the same rules as everyone else - unless you would prefer a chaos state where everyone is defining their own set of rules.

Talking behind someones back and spreading rumors is ALWAYS a cowardly act - n ...[text shortened]... espacially in this case were the "proof" is a extremly subjective interpetasion of "facts".

Please cite to me the "law" that says players here can't discuss between them evidence that certain usernames are using engine assistance.

The Game Mods expect players to come to them with some evidence that a user is cheating; how do you expect them to obtain it? Esp. when many players do not even own engines or aren't aware of how to use them to identify engine use.

You can prattle on and on about what you think is "cowardly" but the site rules are what they are. And engine analyses are facts though they, like any other facts, do require interpretation. I prefer to do that interpretation rather than stick my head in the sand - to me to ignore the facts regarding engine abuse here is cowardly and morally reprehensible.