Only Chess
05 Feb 11
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by cotoimy thoughts exactly. you shouldnt have to pay $40 for "loyalty" when its arguable that a free site is better. (not going to name names or this will poof) Ive been pulling for this site for a long time but its just constant letdown. theres been tons of awesome people here and a lot character, but so many things keep holding it back 🙁
I speak only for myself. I consider 4 chess sites: ICC, playchess, chess.com and RHP. I care about the number of users (how easy is to play a blitz game) and I care that the number of cheaters is reasonable. The site with the highest score gets my subscription. Until now the winner was ICC. If RHP wants to compete with it, then the cheaters should be banned MU ...[text shortened]... pport the manufacturer. I return it and I make sure that in the future I avoid that mark.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34OF course, I don't say that bans should be "granted" easily, and it's better to allow some cheaters to play on rather than to ban innocents. However I have two points in the case of Mr. W:
It was difficult with Weyerstrass, he was a known C.C. IM.
They had not used the match up system to catch and ban anyone of
this calibre before.
Ronald Weyerstrass is a Dutch chess player. He is an ICCF master.
In 1990 he became CC champion of the Netherlands. Ronald also played in the
15th world championship CC and finished sixth.
Has w ...[text shortened]... be here.
It was an unique case, not your unknown poser, but a genuine very good chess player.
1. 5 years is way too long.
2. There is a sharp increase in the quality of the CC games Weyerstrass played before the advent of computers and the games he played here. Not only match-up rates, but also tactical errors.
3. It's sad to see strong players join the Borg. I don't know, I hope that, if a cheating policy were applied strictly, maybe fewer strong players would be tempted to cheat. I think that, under normal conditions (few engine cheaters), Weyerstrass would have made it to the top spot on the rating list without silicone help.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by windforceNo, I pay for ICC. I want quality and I pay for it. Nothing is free.
my thoughts exactly. you shouldnt have to pay $40 for "loyalty" when its arguable that a free site is better. (not going to name names or this will poof) Ive been pulling for this site for a long time but its just constant letdown. theres been tons of awesome people here and a lot character, but so many things keep holding it back 🙁
Chess.com is equally bad as RHP.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou use the term "completely fair". To be completely fair, you need to define the term "extraordinarily high matchup rate" numerically and also "game after game". That could be 2 games, could be 100. Probability and statistics are intertwined in that data sets are analyzed statistically in order to determine the probability of their congruence with reality. ("Reality" is not an easy definition to make, but we don't want to get into philosophic arguments here, as well.) The larger the data set, numerically, the better the probability functions are in predicting future data points. There are several common probability functions utilized to do this. Each of these functions is predicated on a certain type of distribution. e.g The normal distribution is one such type, used by Kain in his technique, and is based upon certain assumptions about the data. Independence of the data points from each other is one such factor. In chess, the data points are not independent, and this needs to be taken into account. In fact, the probability function necessary for analysis of a chess game is far removed from a normal distribution curve, and Kain's standard deviation of 7.1% is suspect from the outset at any rate.
BS. I've been hearing such rationalizations on this site for 5 years. While I do not rely solely on matchup rates, at some point it's completely fair to say that an extraordinarily high matchup rate in game after game is about as conclusive evidence as one can get in this life. If you want to criticize the use of stats in this case, I suggest you come up ...[text shortened]... in these matters rather than relying on joke lines from an author dead for about a 100 years.
My point is: do not rely of statistics to prove the truth of a matter.
As to Twain: you are correct that it has been slightly over 100 years since he died.
However, you are incorrect saying that he said this as a joke. In fact, Twain has stated that he stole this saying from another person, and was using it as I used it, to make a point. It has, over the years, been falsely attributed to Twain, and the circumstances of its use have been largely forgotten.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by ParShooterSeems like he's already flown the coop. (Almost 2 days and no moves.) Saw that the jig was up.
I am in a tournament with the accused. I am not playing him yet but chances are good we will be matched up in the next round. If this happens, should I play as slowly as possible to maximize my chances of remaining alive should he be banned? Seems like a good strategy.
So, the question you have may be already answered.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by DanTriolaThat you can string a few sentences of gobbledygook together isn't as impressive as you might think. We've had this conversation with players here many times over the last 6 years and the idea that matchup rates can't be conclusive evidence of engine use has been debunked many times. The bottom line is if you're playing on RHP and you have higher engine matchup rates than the best players in the world and the best correspondence GMs of the non-computer past (which rates are very close to each other), you're cheating. I'm quite content to rely on statistics in this matter for the most part; what pray tell else would you rely on?
You use the term "completely fair". To be completely fair, you need to define the term "extraordinarily high matchup rate" numerically and also "game after game". That could be 2 games, could be 100. Probability and statistics are intertwined in that data sets are analyzed statistically in order to determine the probability of their congruence with reality ...[text shortened]... ely attributed to Twain, and the circumstances of its use have been largely forgotten.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1,
That you can string a few sentences of gobbledygook together isn't as impressive as you might think. We've had this conversation with players here many times over the last 6 years and the idea that matchup rates can't be conclusive evidence of engine use has been debunked many times. The bottom line is if you're playing on RHP and you have higher engine ...[text shortened]... ely on statistics in this matter for the most part; what pray tell else would you rely on?
I was not trying to be impressive. I was trying to simplify the explanation for your benefit. Obvious that it was still above your head though. Sorry.
The use of the term "Debunked" indicates a rigorous mathematical proof. If you cannot comment on the basic explanation which I've given other than to characterize it as "gobbledygook", then it is difficult to see how you arrived at your conclusion, other than to blindly accept what you've been told by others.
My point is, and has been, statistical results are only as valid as the probability function used to analyze them is appropriate to the data set. One cannot look at numerical results and called them "statistics". Which is what you are doing.
And that was the point Twain was making, also.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderPast discussions have associated blatant cheaters with having *much* higher match ups rates, and not just "higher". The bottom line is that nobody has a baseline for what a modern day top CC player can achieve without engine assistance.
The bottom line is if you're playing on RHP and you have higher engine matchup rates than the best players in the world and the best correspondence GMs of the non-computer past (which rates are very close to each other), you're cheating.
We have current top OTB figures, and top CC from over 30 years ago - but not top unassisted CC from today. Ok, there are good reasons why such figures are not available but that doesn't make using other figures more relevant.
I do believe that the available baselines are sufficient for blatant cheaters who are *much* higher. But you can't simply extend that to mean "any higher means cheating" without questioning the baselines.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by DanTriolaGFY. Your "explanation" isn't responsive to the issue at hand and attempts to use terminology as a shield against reality when terminology is supposed to be used to clarify reality.
No1,
I was not trying to be impressive. I was trying to simplify the explanation for your benefit. Obvious that it was still above your head though. Sorry.
The use of the term "Debunked" indicates a rigorous mathematical proof. If you cannot comment on the basic explanation which I've given other than to characterize it as "gobbledygook", then it is di ...[text shortened]... tistics". Which is what you are doing.
And that was the point Twain was making, also.
I'll make it simple for you: please explain how someone playing on an internet chess site could consistently match up with engines, at higher rates than the best chess players in the world do and at higher rates than correspondence GMs before the advent of said chess engines, and not be using said engines in selecting their moves.
And I hate to break it to you, Mr. Pseudo Genius but statistics is "numerical results" or more precisely "
The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data". And that is what is being done here: the collecting, organizing and interpretation of numerical data i.e. the number of times a move made by a "player" here matches the recommendation of a chess engine. Better buy a dictionary, Sport. Or explain how someone does statistics without looking at numerical results.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by VarenkaWe've went over and over and over this. I'm satisfied with the baselines established esp. as it takes consistent results over the baselines in many games to justify the conclusion of cheating. I see no logical reason to believe that present non-GM correspondence players should out-perform GM CC players from 30 years ago. And do it on an internet site while playing dozens or hundreds of games. Consistent higher results is good enough for me, but if the Game Mods insist on higher than that it's up to them; you reduce the minimal risk of false positives but then assure that more cheaters are getting away with it for longer periods of time.
Past discussions have associated blatant cheaters with having *much* higher match ups rates, and not just "higher". The bottom line is that nobody has a baseline for what a modern day top CC player can achieve without engine assistance.
We have current top OTB figures, and top CC from over 30 years ago - but not top unassisted CC from today. Ok, there ...[text shortened]... simply extend that to mean "any higher means cheating" without questioning the baselines.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by DanTriolayou were spilling vague trivialities that completely disregard the actual statistical procedure used. THAT is what the mark twain joke criticizes, not the dicipline of statistics itself.
No1,
I was not trying to be impressive. I was trying to simplify the explanation for your benefit. Obvious that it was still above your head though. Sorry.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd what about present GM CC players? I'm not saying I believe anyone on RHP to be a GM CC but I don't regard it as impossible in the future. And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if a present day GM CC can achieve a higher match up rate than those of over 30 years ago.
I see no logical reason to believe that present non-GM correspondence players should out-perform GM CC players from 30 years ago.
07 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaHere is a thing: what if you are banned from RHP or other site for cheating? Is that a tragedy for a legit player? In fact it's a wonderful thing, you are told that you play at the same level with Anand or Carlsen; you should leave RHP or other amateurs site and play OTB. There is enough money in chess at your 2700+ level.
Past discussions have associated blatant cheaters with having *much* higher match ups rates, and not just "higher". The bottom line is that nobody has a baseline for what a modern day top CC player can achieve without engine assistance.
We have current top OTB figures, and top CC from over 30 years ago - but not top unassisted CC from today. Ok, there hy such figures are not available but that doesn't make using other figures more relevant.