Originally posted by grater216To everyone else.. please, take the time to think about it fairly rather than 'oh the mods say he's guilty so he has to be'. Think for yourself.
ih8sens
Well.. I have nothing left to say.. the general consensus is definitely that I'm guilty and so I will accept that. The issue I have is with those people on this site whom I kept reasonably close companionship... there was a trust and friendship I made with several people on this site and I don't like the thought of that going unadressed.. I hav ...[text shortened]... hanks for the great time I had on this site.
Best Wishes to All,
Matthew N. (ih8sens)
The mods don't say it. They have proven it beyond reasonable doubt. That is quite enough for me. They are not playing russian roulette.
I find this an appalling act from you, Matt, and I sincerely hope you will not do the same on any other chess site.
Originally posted by grater216Are you upset that you were found to be a cheater before being found to be a multiple account holder?
ih8sens
Well.. I have nothing left to say.. the general consensus is definitely that I'm guilty and so I will accept that. The issue I have is with those people on this site whom I kept reasonably close companionship... there was a trust and friendship I made with several people on this site and I don't like the thought of that going unadressed.. I hav ...[text shortened]... hanks for the great time I had on this site.
Best Wishes to All,
Matthew N. (ih8sens)
🙄
Originally posted by adramforallGive him a chance.
Are you upset that you were found to be a cheater before being found to be a multiple account holder?
🙄
We don't know anything about the account he was using to give us his defense speach. It could be a sleeping account of his friend. We don't even know if he logged on himself, perhaps his friend wrote it from manuscript. We don't know anything.
I think it is valuable to read his words, if not for other reasons so only to understand him better, of why and such.
To his few defenders who seem determined to defend him, despite the fact that his own posts in this thread, under a new username, hardly constitute a vigorous defence of his innocence: allow me to me demolish your protestations 1 by 1.
First the weakest one: that they've dug up a couple of his recent games to illustrate that he couldn't have cheated in them, and therefore by extension he has never cheated. That is a pitiful defense, as you don't need to cheat in every single game you play to be a cheater. In fact, a cheater may have several compelling reasons to avoid doing just that. For one, if caught he, and those who think they know him, can always point to such games as "proof" that he doesn't cheat. For another, he may only fire the engine up in games that, for whatever reasons known only to him, are the ones he decides to consult it on. He may also have enough scruples, such as they are, to avoid engine use against people he knows. That he didn't use an engine in some games in no constitutes any kind of proof that he didn't use one in others.
Second, the question of stastical sample size. If you analyze only the games he played since his suddeb ski slope rise on his rating graph, than we're looking at about 50 games. Does anyone believe a statistically significant engine matchup in several of those games isn't proof enough when OTB IMs GMs, and historical CC IMs & GMs never cross the accepted threshold? Just how much proof do you need? Does the suspected cheater need to carry on as usual with nobody the wiser for hundreds, or even thousands of games and in the process corrupting the rating system, deceiving his opponents and peers, and stealing tournament victories from honest players, before you're finally satisfied that a sizable enough body of games exists to come to an accurate conclusion?
Good god I hope not. If the admins ever adopted such a preposterous policy then the honest players would flee this place in droves and all you'd have left are the cyborgs and bots.
Fine.. I'll be vigourous.
I DIDN'T CHEAT
you may believe some of my analysis methods were near the line but I AT NO TIME EVER CROSSED THAT LINE.
oh and scandium you slime...
If you insist I cheated.. I beg you to find a game where I did.. find a single move!
I have so many games where the moves I discovered were far better than engines can find.. is that not proof!
Originally posted by scandiumI am not defending him for his alleged act of cheating, no way.
To his few defenders who seem determined to defend him, despite the fact that his own posts in this thread, under a new username, hardly constitute a vigorous defence of his innocence: allow me to me demolish your protestations 1 by 1.
(If you didn't refer to me as his defender, please disregard the rest of this posting.)
Here we have an example of accused cheating. He was a liked member of this site. He was (apart from his cheating, of course) a gentleman. He was willing to help peole of theirs chessical problems. He was, in short, a friend.
But he used an engine. Therefore he lost all his honour as a member of this community. He didn't respect the TOS, and therefore he was banned.
But it is valuable to know his motifs. Was he a engine-o-holic? "Just one more game, and then I'll be straght honest." Or was he a frauder? Was he a mythomaniac? Why is it so interesting to know his personality, how he was able to do his cheating? Because, I suppose, we have a lot of grayers among us. Who says: "It is okay if you just dont get caught." Or "Little cheating is not cheating, only when you do it 100% of your games." Or "I don't like TOS 3b, so I don't care about it." Or "I am better than all trash players here at RHP, so I have the right to do what I want." I would like to know more about his motifs. And the only way to know him better is to let he have space to tell us about his alleged cheating.
We have a court here, and a judge. But who is the jury? We are! We also want to say what we think, and we want facts so we can tell right from wrong, honour from cheating.
There is no black or white in this. There is not only heaven and hell. There is alot of gray space in between. He doesn't think he is cheating, we do. Why not listen at him? Could it harm anyone? I don't think so.
i was 'banned' accidentally.. there was a miscommunication where I asked to have my subscription removed and ended up having my account accidentally terminated..
24 hours or so later everything was resolved and I got my account back.
Doesn't look like it's gonna happen this time :'(
Good luck in the future guys.. for those interested in following my 'cheating' 🙁 I'll be playing on www.shemingmind.com looks like a good site.
Anyone who is still undecided about whether I cheated or not (I don't expect you to take my word for it... i wouldn't believe anyone else).
... please join that site and send me a game OR play me at www.playchess.com where I can play OTB with you.
This is extremely dissapointing..
Maybe one day I will actually achieve the status of IM and can come back here and prove it to you all..
Originally posted by scandiumYou are taking this way to seriously aren't you?
Second, the question of stastical sample size. If you analyze only the games he played since his suddeb ski slope rise on his rating graph, than we're looking at about 50 games. Does anyone believe a statistically significant engine matchup in several of those games isn't proof enough when OTB IMs GMs, and historical CC IMs & GMs never cross the acce ...[text shortened]... nally satisfied that a sizable enough body of games exists to come to an accurate conclusion?
On statistics 50 sample points are nothing to make any kind of judgement. Unless of course you are a sociologist. But given that the sample are moves on particular positions that makes things better. I don't know, maybe an average of 20 moves a game (I think I'm being way generous here) so it gives us something on the order of thousands sample points. And this starts to be a good sample.
Now given the fact the he liked and played really sharp and tactical lines on his games and was a frequent Fritz analyser (and here I condemn him. This takes away a lot of chess knowledge. At least this is what I think.) it doesn't surprise me that he had a high match up. Now what his the treshhold that his considered acceptable by the mods I don't know and neither do you. And like I said I trust them on their analysis and good faith (but they are human and can be wrong), but people citing statistical methods and then showing that they don't know what they are talking about is waht made me post the replies.
I think that for now I'm out of this thread given that I have better things to do with my time.
Originally posted by grater216Do you have any idea why you was booted, if not having a very high match up in some of your games?
i was 'banned' accidentally.. there was a miscommunication where I asked to have my subscription removed and ended up having my account accidentally terminated..
24 hours or so later everything was resolved and I got my account back.
Doesn't look like it's gonna happen this time :'(
Good luck in the future guys.. for those interested in following ...[text shortened]... ill actually achieve the status of IM and can come back here and prove it to you all..
I don't have a chess program, but for those who have, they may easily find those games. If existent, they are likely recent wins against highly rated players.