Only Chess
06 Mar 08
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by cashthetrashI doubt very seriously if people are willing to put in the hard work and long hours necessary to expose the engine users here only to have the result be that the cheats are "moved" to another part of the site! Why not ask those who have served as Game Mods if that's what they want? The Game Mods opposed the reinstatement of a prior 3(b) and I don't think they are willing to serve as a mere filter to decide where on the site cheating is A-OK.
Go read my post again, I never suggested abolishing the mod system. Your comprehension level is not working properly. Speak less and listen more. I plainly said leave the mods, but contain the cheaters. Instead of the death penalty, put them in jail figuratively speaking.
Keep reading it until it becomes your own idea. As soon as a few more that 10% ...[text shortened]... aren't going to control me so you might as well give up and go manipulate your chess moves.
You're already fully controlled, so me trying to "control" you would be redundant. Anyway, unlike others here, I have no use for mindless puppets.
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are right you don't think.
The Game Mods opposed the reinstatement of a prior 3(b) and I don't think they are willing to serve as a mere filter to decide where on the site cheating is A-OK.
If the system was imposed there would still have to be mods, otherwise there would still be engine use where it didn't belong.
Let's be honest, you just like to argue and it doesn't matter who is right. I know if the idea came from one of your own, you would be giving every reason in the world why it was a good idea. I have seen it happen before. Flip flopping happens all the time if it suits your whims.
It won't be long and someone like Hopscotch will come up with the idea and you will be all over it like a mouse takes to cheese trying to sell it.
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashStop projecting; just because for YOU the source of an idea is the most important thing, doesn't mean it is for rational people.
You are right you don't think.
If the system was imposed there would still have to be mods, otherwise there would still be engine use where it didn't belong.
Let's be honest, you just like to argue and it doesn't matter who is right. I know if the idea came from one of your own, you would be giving every reason in the world why it was a good idea p with the idea and you will be all over it like a mouse takes to cheese trying to sell it.
If such a system was "imposed", I think you'd have great difficulty in getting anyone to be a Game Mod. As far as I know, no other site allows people to cheat and then if they are caught use a "C". On Playchess, if you want to run an engine you have to tell the Admins up front and then you play in the Engine Room. If you are caught using an engine outside the Engine Room, you are banned. Period. I think the setup is similar on ICC, though I haven't played there.
Your personal vendetta is really tiresome as it seems based entirely on falsehoods. Hopscotch????? LMAO! Ask Hopscotch if I have ever thought he had a good idea!
I can't imagine how, of all the untrue things you could possibly claim, that you decide to claim that I would EVER embrace a "solution" that would allow caught engine cheaters to remain on this site. That's as far from any position I have ever espoused as you can get.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderDefinitely no. In my opinion only possibility to get ban may more or less intimidate them.
I'll throw this question up to people who have been Game Mods before or have applied for the position now:
IF the only penalty imposed upon engine cheats here was they would have to play in a separate area AFTER they were caught cheating, would you want to be a Game Mod?
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOn ICC following a warning they simply mark the players name with a (c) so everyone knows it's an engine and they are available to play but only unrated games. Some engines on ICC are always available to play and some of these are set to endgame training...you can play a set piece ending against them for example.
I'll throw this question up to people who have been Game Mods before or have applied for the position now:
IF the only penalty imposed upon engine cheats here was they would have to play in a separate area AFTER they were caught cheating, would you want to be a Game Mod?
When I first joined ICC it was useful to be able to play a couple of games against the engines while I got used to the way things worked and from time to time I still jump on one of the endgame training bots to see how accurately I can mate with two bishops or with knight and bishop and so on.
On some sites they have engines run by developers who are designing chess engines that learn from play and I think these are potentially of interest as are humans who wish to do battle with their engine against an opponent with an engine.
Personally I don't have a problem with any of the above although I'm not advocating it for this site. I also think that a cheating player who gets a (c) stamp after their user name will have been dealt with effectively. But this is just my opinion and not something I'd wish to impose on anyone and I'm very happy with the zero tolerance approach here on rhp.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderNo.
IF the only penalty imposed upon engine cheats here was they would have to play in a separate area AFTER they were caught cheating, would you want to be a Game Mod?
Having a separate area for computer assisted players does not excuse such a player from masquerading as a human being in the non-engine section. The same penalty that applies now for cheating should apply whether there is a separate section or not.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherConsidering that Russ doesn't even want to allow engine use in unrated games for the purpose of tutoring, with both players agreeing to it, it also seems highly unlikely that he would come up with or agree to such a solution. (I am glad about the latter, but regret the former.)
No.
Having a separate area for computer assisted players does not excuse such a player from masquerading as a human being in the non-engine section. The same penalty that applies now for cheating should apply whether there is a separate section or not.
17 Mar 08
Initially I viewed some of the suggestions as interesting and at first I thought branding the player with a c or forcing them to play in a separate area rather than banning them outright might humiliate then so much that they would not want to suffer it and the effect on detering cheaters may be greater than an outright ban. After all who wants to be publicly humiliated in this way and read sbout how little everyone thinks of them in the forums.
Then I thought that such cheaters would simply start posting in the forums about how they have been accused by mistake and how innocent they are so it didn't seem a great idea. So how about branding them and not allowing them to post in the forum. Would this achieve anything positive. Well if they are innocent maybe it would give them a chance to prove it whislt under the scrutiny of all members and if they could go 6 months without cheating they could come back into the fold.
Then I thought that the only people who would be able to prove their innocence in this way would be those that trully were innocent which would mean the mods made a mistake. Surely not! Could the mods make a mistake - presumably not if the benefit of the doubt is given and it even high match ups do not prove guilt - even high match ups merely indicate a probability of cheating and that is never 100% so no matter how high the match up there would always be doubt. So the mods must look at more than that and having been given the initial evidence their research indicates a high level of match up over a reasonable sample of appropriate games indicating a high probability of cheating. Having been given a high probability they now merely need to discover computer moves and I wiould suggest that some moves are just so obviously engine moves that a single move is all it would take to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I assume only then would a player be banned.
So there could be no innocent people mistakenly banned and no point in having them try and rehabilitate themselves so what is the point of the branding or the separate area. A real cheat cannot play reasonable chess anywhere near his real standard and would not be interested in showing just how bad he is so if allowed to do this he would simply carry on cheating.
So its a pointless excercise and a banning seems the only solution. If they come back with a different name and cheat again they will be caught again.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by NordlysUnfortunately I deserve a ban having undertaken the former although I did not actually make any moves that the engine suggested in the process of giving the tutorial, well not good ones anyway as I was seeking "apparently good" moves to make that were bad with 3 or 4 move combinations rather than merely dropping pieces - in other words I was using an engine to deliberately make inferior moves that my opponent could take advantage of and this was done with the knowledge of my opponent and publicly mentioned in the forums.
Considering that Russ doesn't even want to allow engine use in unrated games for the purpose of tutoring, with both players agreeing to it, it also seems highly unlikely that he would come up with or agree to such a solution. (I am glad about the latter, but regret the former.)
Of course with the "illegality" of such actions coming to light I would not do it again which is a shame as it makes tutoring so much more work and I don't have time for that.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireYes, it's a shame, and I still don't understand the reasoning, but I have given up trying to convince Russ to change this rule.
Unfortunately I deserve a ban having undertaken the former although I did not actually make any moves that the engine suggested in the process of giving the tutorial, well not good ones anyway as I was seeking "apparently good" moves to make that were bad with 3 or 4 move combinations rather than merely dropping pieces - in other words I was using an eng ...[text shortened]... ain which is a shame as it makes tutoring so much more work and I don't have time for that.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by NordlysI think the reasoning is easy to see. A blanket ban leaves no possible grey areas to be exploited. If engine use in unrated games was permitted the cheat could say that he thought the games he had played were unrated. How could you prove that said cheat is not simply too stupid to notice whether a game is rated or not?
Yes, it's a shame, and I still don't understand the reasoning, but I have given up trying to convince Russ to change this rule.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherWell hypothetically speaking, if the rules were changed you would either comply or be replaced. Not saying the rules would change but it really doesn't matter what you or anyone else would approve of in that case.
No.
Having a separate area for computer assisted players does not excuse such a player from masquerading as a human being in the non-engine section. The same penalty that applies now for cheating should apply whether there is a separate section or not.
But anyway that is why it is just a theory, to search for other ways. As a Democrat I personally am opposed to the death penalty. I believe in other more progressive solutions. Some people on the other hand feel different and that is fine.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by KeplerHis reasoning went more along the lines of "if someone already has an engine running, it's more likely xe'll also use it for cheating". But people can use an engine to analyse finished games or to play against it anyway, and I just can't see how using it in an unrated tutoring game in addition would make it more tempting for the player to also use it in rated games in progress.
I think the reasoning is easy to see. A blanket ban leaves no possible grey areas to be exploited. If engine use in unrated games was permitted the cheat could say that he thought the games he had played were unrated. How could you prove that said cheat is not simply too stupid to notice whether a game is rated or not?
In your scenario, the cheat would also have to get the opponent to say that they agreed on the engine use. That's unlikely to happen. And if that's not enough, my guess is that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to add a checkbox for unrated games that both players have to check if they agree on allowing engine use in that game.
