ih8sens banned 3(b)

Originally posted by Guych
WOW. A moment ago I was going to send a challenge to Chessisvanity and noticed that he was banned...
How do you find out the reason for the ban?

you can't anymore. but he was banned for racist posting, which would fall under 3c I guess. it happened ages ago. I think he popped in here with a new account at some point, but was quickly banned again.

he plays on GK I think.

Originally posted by tomtom232
He actually said he had done lots of analysis on the traxler and that many of his games followed that analysis. A good memory isn't cheating. I'm not saying he didn't but I never trust game moderation teams especially since I was banned from gameknot for engine use after playing just five games.

How many games could go into the Traxler anyway? As white, his opponents aren't going to play it too often. As black, his opponent has to play 1.e4 go into the Italian game and play 4.Ng5. I doubt that even 10% of games would get to the Traxler.

Originally posted by Schumi
I doubt that even 10% of games would get to the Traxler.

According to the RHP database. Out of 576,549 games, only 3,481 have had the position after Ng5. That works out as only 0.6%.

Of coarse that figure would be a lot higher for someone who always plays the Two Knights whenever possible. Say half your opponents play e4 when your black. That’s 25% of all your games. Only about one in six of those white goes on to play Nf3 and Bc4. That only works out at about 4% of games. From there less than half of the games white went on to play Ng5. So that gives about 2%(at best) of your games going into this opening.

Just shows how pointless it is to study opening sidelines. Or should I say how inefficient a use of your chess study time it is.

Umm…… can you tell I’m bored? 😉

Originally posted by philidor position
are you sure about this?

So, when I play my pet openings in blitz and analyze them, finding out (almost always) I've gone wrong in or right after the opening, and come up with better lines post mortem, I'm supposed to NOT use that stuff in CC games? my logic tells me this can't be right.

but if this is true, I believe then the rules need a ...[text shortened]... aybe 15-20 elos if you are serious -I mean, like on a professional level-, but not any more.

Of course you can use that stuff! But I thought only when you remember it and not by looking it up in your personal database during the game.

The ToS says: you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials

But maybe I interpret it wrong?

Originally posted by adje
But maybe I interpret it wrong?

You interpret it right.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
You interpret it right.

I would think he interprets it wrong.

What you're saying is,during a game here I may look up anything in an existing (online or commercial)database but may not have a look at my own notes/database,but I can use it if I remember it.That sounds ridiculous.

other pre-existing research materials
Surely my own after game analyses falls under this header.

Originally posted by wormwood
5 games? hah, that's pretty ridiculous. but GK banning seems to have always been based on flimsy evidence at best, so it doesn't really surprise me. it does surprise me though that they actually banned anyone for engine use to begin with. are you sure it wasn't for something else?

anyway, ih8sens couldn't have possibly engine analyzed traxler in advance ...[text shortened]... d the combinatorial explosion blows the roof right of that claim. it just isn't possible.

It may have been but I never posted in the forums there so I'm just assuming that's what it was.

If he was any good he wouldn't have to analyze day and night. He could find wins against inobvious blunders and punish the others without need of analysis. Although I agree with you that it shouldn't make a difference since not all his games could possibly have been traxlers.

That wasn't what I was getting at though. I was saying that I don't remember him admitting but I do remember him saying that. In fact, he created another user just to say he wasn't cheating.


Other people no better than I if he was cheating or not but I am just saying that I believe around the time he was banned he was good enough to be 1900.

Originally posted by tomtom232
...around the time he was banned he was good enough to be 1900.

well he was using engines you know. 😕

could be that I remember him admitting cheating wrong, but I don't think so. I think it came up on one of those occasions when he was confronted about it on chess.com. something like 'yeah, but I don't cheat any more'... anyway, it doesn't matter whether he admitted it or not.

Originally posted by Romanticus
I would think he interprets it wrong.

Well, when I was a game mod and after similar debates in these forums, I formulated that clarification to rule 3(c).

Noting one or two position-perfect moves (extremely rare beyond opening theory) from prior computer analysis is neither here nor there. It may increase any match-up analysis marginally, not significantly, and it is not specifically against the rules. But loading a database with thousands upon thousands of computer analyzed positions along your favoured lines is a completely different matter. This is not something done to enhance your learning and understanding of chess, but rather a "lookup table" to beat your opponents unfairly.

Any investigation into your play will use a large database of prior human vs human games to determine the end of opening theory. Beyond that point, if you play like engine, it will be assumed you are using an engine. Arguments of having used a computer generated database simply would not arise as they are expressly against the rules of this site.

Originally posted by wormwood
well he was using engines you know. 😕

could be that I remember him admitting cheating wrong, but I don't think so. I think it came up on one of those occasions when he was confronted about it on chess.com. something like 'yeah, but I don't cheat any more'... anyway, it doesn't matter whether he admitted it or not.

I meant to say that I believe he was good enough to achieve 1900 without an engine.

I am positive that he could not have used an engine in our blitz games. They were 5/0 games and there just isn't time to use them in 5/0 games, I know, I have tested this theory and I found that against anybody that can last will end up winning on time. (I tested it with willing participants who I trust. We played both sides: meaning we each played the engine and the non engine side.... Now this doesn't account for people who may be able to write a program that makes the moves automatically but I know he didn't since he lost a few and one a few with no obvious changes in playing strength that would indicate an engine)

I guess he either had a lack of confidence or he didn't want to wait so long for the rating or maybe he had a high game load and folded under the pressure? I don't know I just find these things interesting.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I meant to say that I believe he was good enough to achieve 1900 without an engine.

I am positive that he could not have used an engine in our blitz games. They were 5/0 games and there just isn't time to use them in 5/0 games, I know, I have tested this theory and I found that against anybody that can last will end up winning on time. (I tested it with ...[text shortened]... game load and folded under the pressure? I don't know I just find these things interesting.

yet people do use engines in blitz.

Originally posted by wormwood
yet people do use engines in blitz.

Maybe people who play with increments or unless they are 5 times faster at switching windows than I am or unless they use it to get an advantage and then play on their own but I already stated that he showed no obvious changes in playing strength. Even if you take only 5 seconds per move that is 3 mins 20 second per 40 moves! This means you would have to put Fritz on 1 second per move,switch to the Fritz window, make the move on Fritz, wait for the reply, switch to the blitz window, and make the move there all in 5 seconds! If I assume correctly, Fritz doesn't play its best at one second per move and you may need more than 60 moves! Meaning you would time out and if you put it on 5 seconds per move then it would take you 10 seconds per move which is well over 5 minutes after 40 moves! You actually have exactly 30 moves to make in a 5/0 game... Imagine someone trying to use and engine in a 3/0 game. Part of the reason why I started 3/0 was to avoid the mythical 5/0 engine users. I get that people try it but I almost guarantee that I could have beat him on time in almost every game of 5/0. Also, we had played some 3/0 games where he didn't play as well but it wasn't a decrease in playing strength so much as just not being adjusted to the time and making a tad more blunders in the time crunch. (which is a decrease in playing strength I just didn't know how else to explain it.)


Enough with my rambling though. I will just agree that people use engines in 5/0 blitz but that they nearly always lose on time against any decent opposition.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Maybe people who play with increments or unless they are 5 times faster at switching windows than I am or unless they use it to get an advantage and then play on their own but I already stated that he showed no obvious changes in playing strength. Even if you take only 5 seconds per move that is 3 mins 20 second per 40 moves! This means you would have to p ...[text shortened]... engines in 5/0 blitz but that they nearly always lose on time against any decent opposition.

people get caught with engines in bullet too. there are better ways to do it than moving in two windows.

Originally posted by wormwood
people get caught with engines in bullet too. there are better ways to do it than moving in two windows.

I already admitted there were better ways but if he used any of those he wouldn't have lost because I'm pretty sure I cant or ever could have beat fritz in blitz.