13 Apr 10
Originally posted by nimzo5I'll disagree only slightly. I think engine users were a bit more likely to join this particular tournament, as they don't have to worry much about gameload, particularly vs. strong opposition. So the percentage of high-rated folks who should be/have been banned overall is likely a bit lower than the percentage from this tournament who should be/have been banned.
probably low.. sad to say.
13 Apr 10
OK. So the "official" process is extremely slow and they only ban players when the evidence is overwhelming. I'm wondering if this implies secretely installing a webcam into the house of the cheater to tape him while using engine assistance 🙂
What about creating unofficial list of suspects? Just to know when accepting a game that these players are maybe GM's or maybe unknown geniuses or maybe Rybkas. I know that it is very hard for one person to analyze many games before selecting opponents. However I wouldn't mind analyzing 2-3 games as part of an collective effort.
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by cotoiCan't make a list of suspects, since anyone can be suspect. Sometimes for very stupid reasons... but often with good reason.
OK. So the "official" process is extremely slow and they only ban players when the evidence is overwhelming. I'm wondering if this implies secretely installing a webcam into the house of the cheater to tape him while using engine assistance 🙂
What about creating unofficial list of suspects? Just to know when accepting a game that these players are maybe GM ...[text shortened]... ing opponents. However I wouldn't mind analyzing 2-3 games as part of an collective effort.
There is an active club you might consider joining that watches and waits... but you can't throw names around in public. I forget the name, but ask around if interested in the club that 'watches out' for 'che@s"
P-
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by cotoino, I just don't see this being viable... imagine the extra workload for the RHP game mods 'cause obviously they would have to vet those games, too, and (double)check your findings
Shall I understand that you prefer cheaters?
If I pre-screen my opponents alone, 2-3 analyzed games means nothing. However, they could mean something if part of a collective effort.
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Leggettand GP34's new thread as well? why are people so fussed as to where certain threads (sometimes) end up in.. it's not like you're getting email alerts for every new post in Chess forum 😉
I'm inclined to think that this link should be removed from "only chess" and moved to another forum such as "general". It is about cheating, not chess, and I see those as different areas.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by RenarsI don't care about the RHP mods, I saw how efficient they are.
no, I just don't see this being viable... imagine the extra workload for the RHP game mods 'cause obviously they would have to vet those games, too, and (double)check your findings
All I'm proposing is an unofficial collective effort of minimizing the chances of playing against artificial intelligence. It should have no value except for the very few who believe that achieving 90% top-three matchup with Rybka is not possible unless you are 2700+ ELO. The others (including the game mods) are kindly asked not to pay attention to such actions.
Also, if someone is included on such a list, he should be very proud, not upset. It means that for some players it looks that he plays at the same level as Anand or Carlsen.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by cotoiIndeed.
Also, if someone is included on such a list, he should be very proud, not upset. It means that for some players it looks that he plays at the same level as Anand or Carlsen.
One of the proudest moments of my chess carrer was being accused of cheating in an ICC blitz tourn by a player rated 2000+ I'd just beaten. If he thought that, I must of played a bloody good game:-)