Only Chess
06 Mar 08
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by gezzaI don't know what the individual player has done, but yes in the final round of the championship, after playing for almost one year in that tournament, I guess that all players involved gave their best. Just have a look to the participants in the final round of Tournament 1677.
So without wishing to accuse anyone else, how do the other players look?
Is it just possible that all of the players in the final round play to a high standard? That they all set up a board and played each move, looked at it for an hour, and then decided whether to play it or not?
How good are the competition?
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauder450 moves could be a mere 9 games of 50 moves each.
You are incorrect; he may have fled the Forums but he kept playing here until the new Game Mod team was selected. I find that somewhat incriminating; not conclusive in and of itself, but part of the puzzle.
The stats from one game mean little, but those from a fairly large number of games having almost 450 non-opening book moves do. Th ...[text shortened]... the site by a witch hunt, I'll stop saying that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
They were played in the final of a championship where all the players were relatively strong.
You would ecpect someone playing in such an important round to raise his game and play at a level above normal.
Consequently the games are being cherry picked. Games that are bound to be of a high standard with a correspondingly higher match up have been choosen for this analysis. The winner could be expected to have a higher match up than the losers.
So this sample in itself proves nothing. How Cludi played in these games compared to his other games may be of relevance to determine if it was indeed the same person with a similar style or whether his style differed significantly enough for it to be supicious. Note suspicion alone is not conclusive without substantive evidence.
You may suspect someone because of a vertical rating graph (they may not have peaked yet), a 600 point rating difference between here and OTB (for years I had a 400 point rating difference OTB between 75 minute games and Rapidplay, my peak rating with 40 moves in 2.5 hours has been 200 higher than my rating with 36 moves in 75 minutes) not only proves nothing but is possible. You may suspect them because they have won a tournament (most moderately strong players have) or have a high match up (we all do in some games). You may suspect them because they talk too much or not enough! Or you may just suspect them because they beat you.
No matter what such supicions prove nothing. The only evidence is to prove that a player is playing like a computer and in that there most definately are engine moves that no strong human player would make.
Let the mod team find those moves if they exist but until then Cludi is innocent.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireDF: 450 moves could be a mere 9 games of 50 moves each.
450 moves could be a mere 9 games of 50 moves each.
They were played in the final of a championship where all the players were relatively strong.
You would ecpect someone playing in such an important round to raise his game and play at a level above normal.
Consequently the games are being cherry picked. Games that are bound to be of a high stan ...[text shortened]... would make.
Let the mod team find those moves if they exist but until then Cludi is innocent.
But they are not here so your comment is meaningless.
The evidence is "substantive" whether you admit it or not. Game analysis is a lot more conclusive than graph changes or differences in ratings for obvious reasons. Whether this analysis along with other indicators is conclusive is for the individual to judge.
You don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as an "engine move" that is different from what a human could possibly make. As far as I know, very high percentages of match ups has always been considered as strong evidence of engine use by the Game Mods. That includes Cludi when he was one.
I repeat: Cludi is either innocent or guilty as a matter of logic - he is not innocent because a final pronouncement of guilt hasn't been made by the Game Mods. Stop asserting he is innocent when you know no such thing.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderhe is innocent until proven guilty. and no vigilantism can change his natural rights. Cludi, guilty, innocent, or of no contest should have his reputation without stain or tarnish, until somebody of honorable power decides and concludes on the subject.
DF: 450 moves could be a mere 9 games of 50 moves each.
But they are not here so your comment is meaningless.
The evidence is "substantive" whether you admit it or not. Game analysis is a lot more conclusive than graph changes or differences in ratings for obvious reasons. Whether this analysis along with other indicators is co ...[text shortened]... n't been made by the Game Mods. Stop asserting he is innocent when you know no such thing.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by AdoreaYou have no "natural right" to be assumed innocent when there is strong evidence that you are not. This is not, I repeat not, a criminal case.
he is innocent until proven guilty. and no vigilantism can change his natural rights. Cludi, guilty, innocent, or of no contest should have his reputation without stain or tarnish, until somebody of honorable power decides and concludes on the subject.
31 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirstly there is no strong evidence that he is guilty and secondly there are such things as "engine moves". An "engine move" is the sort of move that no strong human would make.
You have no "natural right" to be assumed innocent when there is strong evidence that you are not. This is not, I repeat not, a criminal case.
Let me give you a simple example. You have a won position. There are 2 ways to win it, the first is a simple forced mate in 12 that any reasonable player could calculate. The 2nd involves a dangerous sacrifice that if calculated wrong could lose but it actually mates in 8.
A strong human (any human) would always play the 1st line winning in 12 because it has no danger and as easy to see. Having found a forced mate in 12 he is not going to waste time analysing a complex risky mate in 8. The engine would always play the mate in 8 because that is the quickest way to win.
That latter move is an engine move and if found in a game of a player under suspicion due to a high engine match up would constitute the conclusive proof required.
31 Mar 08
The only thing anyone can say about this is that it is not proven. Cludi has not been found to be guilty of cheating (if he were he would be banned) and has not been found to be innocent of cheating. The process was disrupted when the game mods were disbanded so not proven seems a reasonable conclusion until such time as the new game mods wish to pronounce on the matter.
At this time cludi is not a banned player so I suspect that accusing him of cheating would carry the same penalty as accusing any other player. If anyone were to alert a post containing such an accusation of course.
31 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireThere are moves that are more typical of a engine than of a strong human player. But a few instances of moves of this type occurring in a player's games (perhaps in only a tiny number out of hundreds of games) isn't any more conclusive than high matchups in many games. I would say the reverse is true. A cheat who had some knowledge of chess could easily avoid the type of "engine moves" you are referring to without hurting his chance to win games.
Firstly there is no strong evidence that he is guilty and secondly there are such things as "engine moves". An "engine move" is the sort of move that no strong human would make.
Let me give you a simple example. You have a won position. There are 2 ways to win it, the first is a simple forced mate in 12 that any reasonable player could calculate. The ...[text shortened]... nder suspicion due to a high engine match up would constitute the conclusive proof required.
P1: Very high matchups are strong evidence.
P2: Cludi has very high matchups in a fairly large sample
Therefore, .........................................
Fill in the blank.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAm I glad you didn't become a game mod!
There are moves that are more typical of a engine than of a strong human player. But a few instances of moves of this type occurring in a player's games (perhaps in only a tiny number out of hundreds of games) isn't any more conclusive than high matchups in many games. I would say the reverse is true.
P1: Very high matchups are strong ...[text shortened]... Therefore, .........................................
Fill in the blank.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireI'm sure a lot of people here are for various reasons. However, that still won't prevent me from forwarding evidence and analyses to the Game Mods (in fact, I already have).
Am I glad you didn't become a game mod!
If you'd care to actually address the points raised rather than engaging in an ad hominem fallacy be my guest.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. Wikipedia gives "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim"
I'm sure a lot of people here are for various reasons. However, that still won't prevent me from forwarding evidence and analyses to the Game Mods (in fact, I already have).
If you'd care to actually address the points raised rather than engaging in an ad hominem fallacy be my guest.
You said
P1: Very high matchups are strong evidence.
P2: Cludi has very high matchups in a fairly large sample
Therefore, .........................................
Before you claim fact, define "Very high".
Given that Gate said that he was part way through after a week, I think more is needed than just statistics. Give me something more, or your "facts" are no more than idle pub chatter.
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderi think you should have been a game mod, after all is said and done. And these other diabolical ones just don't comprehend or are most probably using engines in some fashion.
I'm sure a lot of people here are for various reasons. However, that still won't prevent me from forwarding evidence and analyses to the Game Mods (in fact, I already have).
If you'd care to actually address the points raised rather than engaging in an ad hominem fallacy be my guest.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
31 Mar 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyYou forgot the [/sarcasm] when accusing "diabolical ones" of engine use. No1 will start to think someone actually agrees with him.
i think you should have been a game mod, after all is said and done. And these other diabolical ones just don't comprehend or are most probably using engines in some fashion.