ih8sens banned 3(b)

Originally posted by cmsMaster
By the way, there are definitely games where he didn't cheat - at least not on every move:

Game 4445144

In this game he said he was going to play for the win to get above 2000 but then changed his mind. Sad really. I had to really try and up my play since I knew I was playing a much better player. It was one of the best games Iv'ed ever played

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I even agreed with you here until I got to the last paragraph. Research of past games is designed to find flaws and help improve next time. The reality is if done properly it is actually used [b]extremely rarely therefore having little if any impact on an engine match up percentage.[/b]

This paragraph?

"Contrast that with the CC player of someone like ih8sens ability, or any other non-Master, who attempts the same research. In the latter case the playing strength and chess understanding isn't there and the engine isn't supplementing the research, the engine analysis is the research. And unlike with the case of the OTB player who plays, if he's very active, maybe a 5-7 round tournament or 2 a month, the RHP player can have 50, 60, 100 games in progress at a time if he's a subscriber, making his "research" far more likely to be put to use. Quite possibly in several games at the same time. Further more, even if its months before he gets to use it, that "research" is sitting in wait in his database which he can consult at any time. In effect, because such research is timeless, accessable, and can be reproduced at will with 100% accuracy can you really believe there's a distinction between consulting such "pre-existing engine research" and simply firing Fritz up to do the same thing on the spot? If there's any difference at all, I don't see it. The effect is 100% the same thing and the TOS absolutely, with no exceptions prohibts the later; therefore it must, by extension, prohibit the former as well."

The intent may be different. But were the analysis 100% engine based, then that part of the game where the book ends and the "pre-existing" engine based research is still, of course going to have a 100% match up rate.

I don't think patzers can use engine analysis intelligently; that is, if doing research with engine assistance I think the research is going to wind up being 100% engine produced, in which case nuances like "pre-existing", "theoretical research" and what not may sound all well and good but the practical result is identical to the person who simply fires up Fritz when the same point of the game is reached. And if you're (I mean the general use of the pronoun, not you DF specifically) using, deliberately and knowingly, the product of an engine's analysis then no matter when the analysis was done, you're using an engine. No grey area there.

Now on the other hand, in fairness, if you're a very strong player who already has a good grasp on the opening you wish to study further, and if you really do put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into that research with engine assistance only informing what is largely your own product, consisting mostly of your own judgment and analysis, and not something anyone with the same engine can duplicate exactly, then you're right that its not the same thing. In fact I'd probably give this time of real research a pass and recognize it as legitimate.

I just don't think most non-masters are capable of it and that their "research" will more likely end up looking like the former, which I do not consider legitimate research or acceptable "pre-existing theory" to use in game.

Edit in re-reading your post (maybe it was another post of yours and not this one, I must confess I am still half asleep) and particularly the last paragraph it seems as though we are actually in agreement on this.

Originally posted by Smiffy
i think that was a win for whites 🙂

Maybe :-) but a draw against a 2000 was good enough for me.

Originally posted by wormwood
please go read the game game mod faq thread: Thread 72203

...and??

As I have said, NOTHING ARE GOING TO CHANGE, I know he can't defeat himself because they "apply a statistical methodology over many, many games that can often highlight patterns of engine abuse that are less than obvious", but it doesn't said it that "statistical methodology" is aplicated almost in unrated games..

Anyways, I don't know what you pretend. Mine is only a personal opinion 😉

Originally posted by aGoRessivE
...and??

As I have said, NOTHING ARE GOING TO CHANGE, I know he can't defeat himself because they "apply a statistical methodology over many, many games that can often highlight patterns of engine abuse that are less than obvious", but it doesn't said it that "statistical methodology" is aplicated almost in unrated games..

Anyways, I don't know what you pretend. Mine is only a personal opinion 😉

A linguist may well tell me that I'm talking nonsense of course but I just get the sense that your poor grammar is fake and that you are ih8sense in disguise...😕

Only kidding...it's just hard enough to judge people in real life let alone cyberspace...I agree that if he wasn't cheating it's a shame he's been banned but you have to trust the mods do a thorough job before taking such drastic action. What else can we do? He was a lively contributor here though and had a few friends who must be feeling duped.

Originally posted by wormwood
please go read the game game mod faq thread: Thread 72203

I am glad someone posted this link because it clears up a lot of the garbage that's being spouted on this thread (and whenever someone gets banned).

It doesn't matter how deeply ih8sens studied the Traxler since the opening moves would not be analysed when making a decision about whether or not he is cheating. I have studied the Max Lange quite deeply and I know quite a few of the variations about 20 moves deep. I also have planned, using an engine and exploring my own ideas, for what I would do once I reach these positions. However, it's really rare that your opponent falls in with your plans and to date I can only recall one game that went in to one of the long variations. As it happened my opponent ruined my preparation by playing all the wrong moves: what a git.

So you see ih8sens' excuse does not hold up. It wouldn't explain the high percentage of engine moves that the mods have detected. Also, I agree with previous posters that his analysis tended to just be what Fritz thought: he never really offered any insights.

Maybe the mods have got it wrong but I doubt it.

Originally posted by demonseed
... my opponent ruined my preparation by playing all the wrong moves: what a git ....

:-)

Opponents tend to do that don't they?


I used to play 1. ... e5 and for about a decade I was ready to play either 17. ... c4 or 17. ... f5 in the main line of the Zaitsev Spanish with analysis going many more moves deep in both variations.

Unfortunately, my opponents never once played book beyond move 13.

It was fun playing through all those Karpov and other GM games to get the book opening knowledge ... just completely useless in practice.

Hey ho.


[edit: I'm talking OTB here not CC]

Originally posted by demonseed
I am glad someone posted this link because it clears up a lot of the garbage that's being spouted on this thread (and whenever someone gets banned).

It doesn't matter how deeply ih8sens studied the Traxler since the opening moves would not be analysed when making a decision about whether or not he is cheating. I have studied the Max Lange quite deeply he never really offered any insights.

Maybe the mods have got it wrong but I doubt it.

In his time on this site he played 600 plus games. And his rating increase came on the last two months or so. So I'm guessin that he didn't play more than 200 games. I don't have the patience to go to his profile and count the games, but I sure know that if you're relying on statistics to infer some decision 200 plus data points aren't that many data points.

As I already said I think that he was banned because on a recent thread he said that he was analysing some line on the Traxler with his engine and he certainly has Traxler games going on.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Honestly, I'm not convinced.

At the moment, I don't have time to completely explain my perspective, but I plan to do so at a later time.

Alright, I'll lay out my argument. I feel as though the majority of players either agree with or accept the decision to ban ih8sens, but I would like to present a different perspective.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, some posts that I wiill eventually to speak to:

Originally posted by cmsMaster

"...he even told me that he expected [his RHP rating] to settle down to 1800..."

Originally posted by Arrakis

"For example, you need to look at some samples of how the person played before his sudden sharp increase in rating and then compare that with his concepts at his peak. If you look at Black's play in Game 4220803 and see that the player played the move 23...Qf6+? can you imagine this same player beating experts in only 2 months?

Sure, we all make blunders, that's why the mods take several samples for comparison."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I would like to lay out a brief timeline.

April 23 -- ih8sens hits 1500
June 22 -- ih8sens hits 1600
October 7 -- ih8sens hits 1700
November 25 -- ih8sens hits 1800
December 11 -- ih8sens hits 1900

It took ih8sens two months to achieve his first 100 point rating milestone, two-and-a-half months to achieve his second 100 rating point milestone, one-and-a-half months to achieve his third 100 rating point milestone, and about half a month to achieve his 100 rating point jump to 1900. In my personal opinion, each of these are reasonable rating achievements except for his rating increase from 1800 to 1900. I will look at this in a moment, but I also would like to note that his average rating was approximately 300 points (from 1500 to 1800) over seven months (April to November); this is a reasonable rating increase. I personally believe, as cmsMaster claims that ih8sens' himself said, that ih8sens is rated somewhere around 1800 on RHP, this largely stems from my belief that 300 points over seven months time is a reasonable pace.

Now, let us analyze in more depth the games which ih8sens played after his rating of 1800.

I would like to point out that out of the 60+ games that ih8sens played bewteen the time he first became 1800 and the time at which he was banned, he only played five players with a rating greater than 1900. Against those five players, he scored one win, one loss, and three draws (for anyone who is interested, from the time that ih8sens first hit 1600 until the time that he first his 1800, he played nine players with a rating greater than 1900 and scored one win, three losses, and five draws).

Again, this is a record of 1-1-3 (after he officially hit 1800; a total record of 2-4-8 from when he hit 1600 onward). Is that really that unreasonable for a player for whom it is easily possible to be rated approximately 1800?

Now, let us actually look at those two games which ih8sens won against players rated over 1900.

Game 4350311 PeterNelly - ih8sens 0-1

9. b4? Gives black a free pawn after a simple two-move tactical combination
28. Qf2? Gives black another free pawn and finally allows ih8sens' bishop sacrifice to pay off; at this point ih8sens is up four pawns to a piece; better was 28. Nf3
32. ... Qa4! A nice tactical move; I can't see any obvious way PeterNelly could have avoided this move; however, I think that anyone rated 1700-1800 or greater could have found it

ih8sens finds a way to force a queen trade and soon plays out a won R+5P vs. B+N+2P endgame.

It appears to me that this game was won by a few small errors that added up and converted into a won endgame; there was no wonderful tactical combination or major piece sacrifice checkmate.

Game 4262472 Mad Mac MacMad -- ih8sens 0-1

Two things should be noted about this game. Firstly, with no disrespect intended, Mad Mac MacMad is currently rated below 1900; he was simply rated higher than 1900 when this game took place. Second, this was a Traxler Gambit game, in which ih8sens undoubtedly used much of his pre-game analysis. I think it would be appropriate to hear from Mad Mac MacMad himself and what his opinion is. As to the extent of ih8sens' use of analysis pre-game or during the game, only ih8sens knows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I had wanted to show to everyone. I am not saying I am convinced of ih8sens' innocence, I am merely saying I am not convinced of his guilt. For example, there is no real way to prove that ih8sens is rated 1800, even if his ascent to 1800 was completely reasonable. Also, as others have pointed out, the line between pre-game analysis and analysis of opening lines reached in a particular game is very fuzzy, and ih8sens may have taken advantage of this. Finally, I do not have any idea what the game moderators have seen; this is one of the drawbacks of this system. Some people seeking answers are genuinely concerned, others wish to use this to help them avoid being caught themselves.

All in all, I am simply saying, after seeing what I have described to you, I definitely believe there is reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt is definitely not sufficient reason to ban a member.

I will move on with my life tomorrow, in the real world and at RHP, but I definitely think ih8sens' case deserved to be heard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should make two final notes. Scrolling along the rating graph, especially using a laptop touchpad, can be very difficult, so I may have miscounted a game in those among ih8sens' games played against players rated higher than 1900. If anyone else is willing to make this amount of effort, please correct me if I am incorrect. Second, in PeterNelly's game against ih8sens, I made limited annotations to the best of my ability; however, I myself am only rated 1800, so I may have overlooked something. If any higher rated players see any errors in my analysis, please say so.

Originally posted by demonseed
Maybe the mods have got it wrong but I doubt it.

Are you convinced beyond the benefit of a doubt that ih8sens is guilty?

Originally posted by cludi

"All players are given the benefit of the doubt."

I'm skeptical; I think ih8sens definitely has the benefit of a doubt.