17 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scandiumWhy is there so much anger in this post?
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 rs would flee this place in droves and all you'd have left are the cyborgs and bots.
Whether he cheated or not, it doesn't really matter. It's only a game.
On this site, there are various people who are better than me, some may use more than their mind - but whether I'm listed as 200th best of 220th best, it doesn't really matter.
What does matter, is that of the 219 ranked above, I'm likely to learn something and I think we all learned something from Matt.
Good luck mate, and all the best
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by gambit05Game 4251154
Do you have any idea why you was booted, if not having a very high match up in some of your games?
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.
This or my game vs. peter nelly..
I ran it through fritz and it seems I match up pretty closely in those two games...
in fact, almost 100% which, if I was a mod would be enough proof to bann me too 😛
Anyways, before I go an convict myself of something I didn't do I should shut up and leave...
if you want/need to talk to me try schemingmind.com .. seems to be as good if not better anyways.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI know that. But scandium is the one that said that 50 sample points are enough. On my reply I even estimated how many samples points there were.
It's not 50 sample points. Each movement beyond the opening is a sample point.
And not all moves are taken into account in the game while the correlation with engines is being calculated. Complicated and tactical position have a bigger bearing on it.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by grater216Scandium doesn't need to find a game. The Game Mods obviously found enough that they decided to ban you.
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!
Or are you insisting, like every caught cheater would, that they got it wrong? 🙄
Go away and play on your other sites, the stench of poo is getting a little overpowering.
< Sprays a can of febreze to get rid of the smell >
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by adam warlockOk, sorry if I misunderstood.
I know that. But scandium is the one that said that 50 sample points are enough. On my reply I even estimated how many samples points there were.
And not all moves are taken into account in the game while the correlation with engines is being calculated. Complicated and tactical position have a bigger bearing on it.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadThanks mad mac I appreciate it...
Why is there so much anger in this post?
Whether he cheated or not, it doesn't really matter. It's only a game.
On this site, there are various people who are better than me, some may use more than their mind - but whether I'm listed as 200th best of 220th best, it doesn't really matter.
What does matter, is that of the 219 ranked above, I'm ...[text shortened]... mething and I think we all learned something from Matt.
Good luck mate, and all the best
I hope to see you on schemingmind.com one day soon.. I had hoped to get a rematch against you 🙂.
okay 'nuff said...
I'll miss you guys..
oh and adamforall or whatever you call yourself... I don't blame you for believing me a cheater, just can the sarcasm... you'll be eating it if the mods ever reopen this case and study my evidence that I didn't cheat 😛.
17 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by grater216Go on then, don't beat around the bush.
Thanks mad mac I appreciate it...
I hope to see you on schemingmind.com one day soon.. I had hoped to get a rematch against you 🙂.
okay 'nuff said...
I'll miss you guys..
oh and adamforall or whatever you call yourself... I don't blame you for believing me a cheater, just can the sarcasm... you'll be eating it if the mods ever reopen this case and study my evidence that I didn't cheat 😛.
And may the wind be on your back.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by grater216I think (assume) that only one or two games with a high match up isn't enough for the game mods here to ban a player. There must be more.
Game 4251154
This or my game vs. peter nelly..
I ran it through fritz and it seems I match up pretty closely in those two games...
in fact, almost 100% which, if I was a mod would be enough proof to bann me too 😛
Anyways, before I go an convict myself of something I didn't do I should shut up and leave...
if you want/need to talk to me try schemingmind.com .. seems to be as good if not better anyways.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by cambridgeiani see what you mean by a "win" for white, but against a 2000 player, i was thrilled to get a draw out of it
tut tut, little lady ..... 'It's a boring game and not worth playing through' ... looks like a win for white to me 😏
See me after class for extra lessons 🙂
17 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by grater216Only a single move eh? How about 5 consecutive moves, every one of them made after your opponent departed book (at which point the evaluation, with your opp's departure from the book line you were both following is -/+ 1.29 in his favour. Then you made 4 consecutive 1st choice Fritz 10 moves followed by a 2nd choice Fritz 10 move, which was the final move in the game. This was a game you'd posted in this forum. All analysis, for all of your moves, was done at depth 13. That is a 100% engine matchup rate and given the prior evaluation and even a glance at the position, its clear that this was no forced line where its only a coincidence that once out of book your play is a 100% Fritz match. Here is the game:
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!
[Event "Clan challenge"]
[Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"]
[Date "2007.11.20"]
[EndDate "2007.11.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ih8sens"]
[Black "khawarizmi"]
[WhiteRating "1980"]
[BlackRating "1840"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "4288575"]
Fritz 10, Depth=13
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Ng1f3 g5 4. Bf1c4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qd1xf3 Qd8f6 7. e5 Qf6xe5 8. d3 Bf8h6 9. Nb1c3 Ng8e7 10. Bc1d2 Qe5f6 (non book, evaluation at depth 13 is -/+ 1.29) 11. Ra1e1 {1} O-O 12. Re1xe7 {1} Qf6xe7 13. Nc3d5 {1} Qe7d6 14. Bd2b4 {1} c5 15. Qf3g4 {2} 1-0
Or would you like more?
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumAll modern opening analysis by masters or nonmasters uses engines to a degree. Sometimes it is merely for verification of soundness and other times it is to find some new idea. If you claim that only masters should be allowed to do opening research with engines then you're essentially claiming that nonmasters aren't allowed to do any of their own opening research because you decide that they don't know how to use engines. This is merely a twisted and unfair idea and has nothing to do with the TOS. Pre-game opening preparation using whatever tools available is not prohibited and is a critical part of correspondence chess.
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, ...[text shortened]... agraph it seems as though we are actually in agreement on this.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by adam warlockNo more seriously than you seem to be about defending the guy. And yes, Sociology was my major in University so I'm well enough aquainted with statistics and statistical significance. Though that aside, the definition of a cheater isn't whether he does so in 1 game, 5, 50, or 500. The only difference is degree and the RHP TOS makes no allowances there. You cheat, even once, and you violate 3(b) and have no business playing chess on this site.
You are taking this way to seriously aren't you?
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 so ...[text shortened]... k that for now I'm out of this thread given that I have better things to do with my time.