17 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scandiumI'm not one to judge and do not wish to lightly throw around cheating accusations. I think it poisons the atmosphere and doesn't help anything. I have not looked at his games and know nothing about him. I am not defending or accusing him. My comment was of a general nature because this has the seeds of a witch hunt. Please don't resort to personal attacks against me. I have nothing against you or anyone else and try to be as fair as I can.
LOL you think someone who plays 1200 level chess for 4 years on RHP before suddenly jumping to 2000 in 10 months a "genuine fast riser"? And one who happens to have just stated earlier that "it doesn't matter whether you cheat or not"?
You're not by chance an attorney are you? If not you should really consider a career in criminal law, as clearly you have no qualms about defending anyone.
Well, I'm out. This is getting too time consuming and heated anyway.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by exigentskyI feel much the same way, and have no interest in becoming embroiled in heated discussions or exchanging insults. I don't think we were quite there, but I'm with you that its best to end the discussion there before it winds up going where neither of us prefer to take it.
I'm not one to judge and do not wish to lightly throw around cheating accusations. I think it poisons the atmosphere and doesn't help anything. I have not looked at his games and know nothing about him. I am not defending or accusing him. My comment was of a general nature because this has the seeds of a witch hunt. Please don't resort to personal attacks ...[text shortened]... be as fair as I can.
Well, I'm out. This is getting too time consuming and heated anyway.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumI'm not as much defending him. I'm just pointing out that the ones that mention the statistical analysis as a tool should really understand what they are talking about first.
No 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.
If you were well aquainted with statistical methods as you say, you would know that 50 sample data means nothing. Unless, of course, for sociology.
Totally agree with you: You make one engine move than you are cheater, but in order to get caught you need to systematically do a lot.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by adam warlockI'm sure anybody with a copy of a few engines and some spare time on their hands can independently verify the 3(b) violation for themselves. Right now that isn't me, and maybe I'm just lazy, maybe I don't know the guy well enough to care, and maybe out of all his posts I've read on this forum I saw none of the insights displayed that I'd expect to a near 2000 rated player to demonstrate when posting the numerous self-promoting posts he made.
I'm not as much defending him. I'm just pointing out that the ones that mention the statistical analysis as a tool should really understand what they are talking about first.
If you were well aquainted with statistical methods as you say, you would know that 50 sample data means nothing. Unless, of course, for sociology.
Totally agree with you: You ma ...[text shortened]... ine move than you are cheater, but in order to get caught you need to systematically do a lot.
Therefore I trust the admins in their abilities, am thankful they do the job they do to at least put a dent in the cheating that goes on here, even if they can't eliminate it completely, and thank them for pruning the site of one more engine user who's breed only casts our hobby into disrepute and poisons from internet chess the kinds of honest players that RHP and the like need more of.
In fairness to ih8sens, its nothing personal for me. As others said, and I'd agree, he seemed like a likable enough fellow and I had no quarrel with him. And no matter who was caught violating 3(b), however much I liked them, respected them, or enjoyed playing them, they too would get the exact same treatment from me, word for word.
17 Jan 08
What actually defines cheating? I've very recently dedicated myself to improving my rating a bit by working on tactics, openings etc. I've read forums about game analysis tools (i.e. RHP game explorer) etc. I've made moves that because of the computer recommendations that I wouldn't have made on my own because I don't have the experience of how that move will develop the board later. Am I cheating? I realize that can only take you so far into a game so if you switch over to an engine at the point the line ends, is that when you begin cheating?
I'm not trying to be a smart a--, but is there a way to clearly define cheating? I don't like to see someone who was so into the site get banned but I hate to think people are cheating (he did have an INCREDIBLE W/L ratio in his clan games!)
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by barch54you answered your own question.
What actually defines cheating? I've very recently dedicated myself to improving my rating a bit by working on tactics, openings etc. I've read forums about game analysis tools (i.e. RHP game explorer) etc. I've made moves that because of the computer recommendations that I wouldn't have made on my own because I don't have the experience of how that move ...[text shortened]... ate to think people are cheating (he did have an INCREDIBLE W/L ratio in his clan games!)
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by HolyTActually, I recall seeing, not very long ago, a number of *highly* self-deprecatory comments by ih8sens, mixed into threads involving games with considerably lower ranked players. At the time I thought it was odd that such a strong player would refer to himself in such scathing terms. He seemed to be going out of his way to draw attention to his blunders, poor games, etc., which might be interpreted as indicating concern over public perceptions of his rather steep recent ratings rise.
I'm a little surprised and disappointed that so many people keep saying, "He was such a nice guy" and "He was so helpful." Sure he may have been, and he kept a nice tone in his posts, but did NO ONE detect a constant stream of hubris and self-importance? Many of his posts or threads started with things like "I just figured this out" or "I just made 1600, 170 ...[text shortened]... hat happened with Dutch Defense getting banned a month ago? I missed that thread!]
Of course, that needn't be indicative of a sense of guilt and might just as easily be attributed to fear of (unwarranted) perceptions and an innocent desire to demonstrate that he was by no means playing error free chess; but in light of recent developments it could also be interpreted as the act of a guilty individual attempting to minimize potential backlash.
As far as the methods used by the administrators to detect engine use, I wonder if they have at their disposal the times between moves. In cases where players are both online and playing real-time chess, this information might provide additional evidence. Normally it would exist only as internal system data (with or without a shelf-life) but might become visible to administrators if and when an audit of a player's games is conducted.
17 Jan 08
I doubt they would take time between moves into account. I hope not anyway, I often load up the page look at some moves then do something else for a while, like watch some t.v or check my emails. I imagine all they are analysing are moves, specifically those which when taken in a large sample group are indicative of a chess engine.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumI fear you exaggerate the benefit of "engine assisted" research and underestimate the strength of the players who do it.
You're either not fully understanding what I was getting at or twisting my words to fit whatever point you're trying to make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that its the former, and I've posted words to the effect of what you're quoting 2, if not 3 different times in separate threads and don't feel like beating a dead horse there if someone either d ...[text shortened]... d my piece on that and don't wish to argue that point with you or anyone else now.
Pre game research is almost exclusively the domain of stronger players and, generally, I do not include myself in that. I have undertaken pre game research no more than a dozen times and always against opponents rated 100+ points above me. The object of that research was to find their pet lines and either try and find improvements or steer things in a different direction. If (and its a big if as 95% of the time the game will diverge before reaching your prepared analysis) the game goes down that line and your research is used you are almost always out of your prepared lines within 3 to 5 moves.
So such research will never be useful in a lot of games and rarely in significant depth. This research will also rarely be beneficial to weaker players as they would not really know where to look. When weaker players claim to be relying in some way on such research they are rarely using research but are probably playing an engine assisted game. Although you have not said so much on that I think we agree.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by FeastboyYour concern seems misplaced. I referred to cases where players moving in real-time banged out moves that also closely match engine moves, in the middlegame and/or endgame. If someone plays a series of such moves in a very short time, during a real-time cc game, it might be regarded as additional evidence that an engine was being used concurrent with the game.
I doubt they would take time between moves into account. I hope not anyway, I often load up the page look at some moves then do something else for a while, like watch some t.v or check my emails. I imagine all they are analysing are moves, specifically those which when taken in a large sample group are indicative of a chess engine.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI am confused by "real time cc game".
Your concern seems misplaced. I referred to cases where players moving in real-time banged out moves that also closely match engine moves, in the middlegame and/or endgame. If someone plays a series of such moves in a very short time, during a real-time cc game, it might be regarded as additional evidence that an engine was being used concurrent with the game.
17 Jan 08
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't know what 'cc' is either but I get the gist. Wouldn't a chess engine take quite a bit of time to run middle game scenarios though? I doubt you could use it that quickly could you?
I am confused by "real time cc game".
Besides which if the moves are indicative of a chess engines moves then the amount of time taken to make those moves wouldn't matter too much would it?