18 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by UserChevyNo you have to look at the games completed when he started this thread on 05 Mar 2007.
I wonder if he was talking about his last finished game, Game 4445144?
e.g. Game 3266050 or Game 3259298 or Game 3266479 all lost just prior to his post.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireI don't see there being any basis at all to believe that. Many people who lose games, particularly when beaten by someone who's play seemed inhuman, wonder if perhaps their opponent was inhuman. I'm not ng seeing how you make the leap from such suspicions to an assumption that the suspicious party is themselves a cheater.
Why is it that again I am proven correct.
I have always felt that the 1st person to accuse another of cheating is usually the cheat himself [b]when he gets beaten and cannot understand why.[/b]
In 13 years of playing chess online, probably due to my level and consequently the level of my opponents, the occasions where that type of suspicion has been aroused has been pretty rare, but its happened (not yet on RHP). When it did I saved the pgn and ran it through an engine or two to see which moves matched up and what the percentage was. Sometimes the results satisfied my suspicions and I put the matter to rest, with no ill will toward my opponent, simply accepting that he either played well, or at least well enough to beat me.
If the analysis was suspicious then I reported the game and the player to the site admins, added the player to my noplay list, and again put the matter to rest.
If more people acted on their suspicions there'd be fewer cheaters and with so many getting caught, the ones who'd be inclined to do so would at least not be able to convince themselves they can't get caught.
Instead too many people give their opponents the benefit of the doubt, and assume if they couldn't be a cheater because if they were they'd have been caught. But it doesn't work that way. A cheater can go on cheating indefinitely until someone finally reports the game as suspicious, because that's the only way the admin team will look at that person's games.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireOoops, I didn't realize that his post came from back in March. So I guess he wasn't talking about a game that came after his post 😞
No you have to look at the games completed when he started this thread on 05 Mar 2007.
e.g. Game 3266050 or Game 3259298 or Game 3266479 all lost just prior to his post.
Originally posted by Dragon Fireit could be just psychological illusion, but I must admit it feels like it's frequent.
Why is it that again I am proven correct.
I have always felt that the 1st person to accuse another of cheating is usually the cheat himself [b]when he gets beaten and cannot understand why.[/b]
one possibility could be that they start by fritzing only a couple of moves, thinking it makes a huge difference, and get disappointed when they still get routinely beaten (because they just don't have the skill to recognize critical moves, and thus the fritzing makes little difference). then they'll accuse someone else because they 'know' their engine moves 'can't be beaten' without foul play. then they'll up the engine move frequency until it makes a difference, which is when they get caught.
I'm sure they'll even try to be clever by making 'easy' moves by themselves. but the funny thing is, those 'easy' moves are easy because they're forced, and thus engine #1, which naturally means they're not reducing their engine match-up rate at all. to fool engine detection, they would need to move difficult moves by themselves, but then again, that's exactly what they don't have the skill to do.
it would be great to get honest feedback about their thoughts from them, but it looks like that kind of integrity just isn't one of their attributes. I've never seen a cheater own up after they've been caught. never. and you just can't trust a word from that kind of a source.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiummy experience has been that when I've reported someone for possible cheating, it has almost invariably turned out they're already being investigated. so I think we're pretty okay on that aspect.
Instead too many people give their opponents the benefit of the doubt, and assume if they couldn't be a cheater because if they were they'd have been caught. But it doesn't work that way. A cheater can go on cheating indefinitely until someone finally reports the game as suspicious, because that's the only way the admin team will look at that person's games.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwoodIndeed. Either they're simply so without scruples of any kind that lying through their teeth is hardly going to be an issue to them when they've already been caught deceiving who knows how many opponents.
iI've never seen a cheater own up after they've been caught. never. and you just can't trust a word from that kind of a source.
Alternatively, in their own mind some may have begun so gradually that they've built up such a wall of rationalizations that to concede one inch would allow the who house of cards to come tumbling down and they'd be exposed nakedly as what they are.
In either case the only thing you can ever be absolutely 100% convinced of is that they're not going to own up to it, certainly not when they have nothing to lose by their continued denials (after all, there are always fools willing to give them the benefit of the doubt) and everything to lose by owning up to it.
The only exception to this that I'm aware of is in the case of a few cheaters who've been caught on ICC. ICC allows them to choose from several different options, and one option, and the only option they can accept if they wish to continue playing on ICC without a (C) next to their name, is if publicly admit that they've cheated and were caught doing so, which they have to place (for whatever period of time) in their finger notes, and they also get their rating reset as well. The incentive to be allowed to continue to play there will motivate a few to come clean and publicly admit it and take ownership of the consequences.
Which is not a bad system, and ICC has other choices for those not willing to do this: accept a refund for the remainder of their subscription and a site ban, or accept a (C) on their account.
RHP's system of simple outright banning with a public notice as to the section of the TOS they were banned for violating is a good system too.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwoodOnly because someone else beat you to it (in which case all the better, the more people who report the more fuel on the fire and the more pressure for them to investigate. My point was just that, as the admins are on record as stating, they don't have the resources to spend investigating every single game played on RHP for a 3(b) violation and therefore depend on us, as much as we depend on them, to report the suspicious games to them so that they know where to investigate.
my experience has been that when I've reported someone for possible cheating, it has almost invariably turned out they're already being investigated. so I think we're pretty okay on that aspect.
19 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by UserChevy[uid]UserChevy[/uid]
[snip]
I can't quite make it out, but it appears to me that the cat in the photo on UserChevy's player page is sighting passersby from a window (apparently with a revolver as a rifle is too unwieldy for its widdle paws). I suppose it's fairly certain that the pictured feline isn't T.S. Eliot's mystery cat, because after all McCavity would never permit itself to be photographed while in the commission of a crime; but I think someone should contact Dr. Cyril Wecht to offer a startling new hypothesis about the second shooter...
Edit: I can't seem to make that user ID link work...
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsUser 346526
[uid]UserChevy[/uid]
I can't quite make it out, but it appears to me that the cat in the photo on UserChevy's player page is sighting passersby from a window (apparently with a revolver as a rifle is too unwieldy for its widdle paws). I suppose it's fairly certain that the pictured feline isn't T.S. Eliot's mystery cat, because after all McCavity wou ...[text shortened]... esis about the second shooter...
Edit: I can't seem to make that user ID link work...
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireGame 3259298
No you have to look at the games completed when he started this thread on 05 Mar 2007.
e.g. Game 3266050 or Game 3259298 or Game 3266479 all lost just prior to his post.
😲
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by Drew LAnd the rather remarkable thing about that game is that his opponent, rated 1411 at the time (against an ih8sens rated 1448) is now rated 1324! It seems as though something must have put the wind up the chap...
Game 3259298
😲
20 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Drew LWhat a vicious attack. That guy was relentless and mercyless. Very nice game.
Game 3259298
😲
Edit: I'm tottally stunned. I really am. That queen sac was Morphy like.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by adam warlockwow! ive never had one that nice before, morphy like indeed! maybe even morphy and tal working it out together! amazing!! 😀
What a vicious attack. That guy was relentless and mercyless. Very nice game.
Edit: I'm tottally stunned. I really am. That queen sac was Morphy like.
i wonder if ih8sens was tutoring him in that game 😉