19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichNo matter how much you analyse your games with an engine you will never start playing like an engine unless you are an engine.
I ask this for three reasons.
First, I can't imagine why anyone (aside from a few smart-ass teenagers who just want to feel they've gotten away with something) would cheat on a chess-playing website. There's no prize money at stake, and one can't even gain status here because any status gained would go to a member's screen name, not to the memb ...[text shortened]... nts to a fairly trivial violation, one which can only be alleged but not proven?
Otherwise I could play like Kramnik or Kasparov or Fisher simply by analysing there games - it will never happen.
If you are serious about chess you will be reading books and studying with other players not just relying an engine analysis which helps you find tactical mistakes but doesn't help you learn. As I have said elsewhere you can analyse 100s of games 15 moves in and never have the same position come up again.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichGolden King is good example, find it in "Find player". Poor fellow played extremly well, it was not his fault, his talent did that to him, and unsensible admins decided to ban him. But he didn't cheat to achieve this rating.
I ask this for three reasons.
First, I can't imagine why anyone (aside from a few smart-ass teenagers who just want to feel they've gotten away with something) would cheat on a chess-playing website. There's no prize money at stake, and one can't even gain status here because any status gained would go to a member's screen name, not to the memb ...[text shortened]... nts to a fairly trivial violation, one which can only be alleged but not proven?
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichActually, in a civil trial the prosecution doesn't have to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard in a civil case is "perponderance of evidence." (O.J. knows that all too well 😀)
Juries can't convict on anything less than evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Is what we do here so important (or so trivial) that we should use a different standard?
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichWe don't use a different standard. No player is banned at RHP while reasonable doubt exists.
Juries can't convict on anything less than evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Is what we do here so important (or so trivial) that we should use a different standard?
The two requirements are 1) overwhelming evidence, and 2) proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Prior to game moderation at RHP, accusations of cheating were rife in the RHP forums, but there was no reliable mechanism to resolve them.
That was an era far more reminiscent of McCarthyism and witch hunts than the present.
19 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireAs I pointed out elsewhere you can also analyse hundreds of games (just over 200 in this case) 20+moves in and end up with the exact same position. It seems to depend on the opening whether you are likely to reach the same position after a long sequence of moves or not, in this case the KIA was involved.
As I have said elsewhere you can analyse 100s of games 15 moves in and never have the same position come up again.
Edit: That should 700 games between 1953 and 2005
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by ivan2908I still don't know how he managed to lose two games either 😛
Golden King is good example, find it in "Find player". Poor fellow played extremly well, it was not his fault, his talent did that to him, and unsensible admins decided to ban him. But he didn't cheat to achieve this rating.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherWe have only your word and the word of the other Game Mods that the mechanism now used is reliable. In a criminal case, one gets to present a defense, something that is not done for those convicted of cheating here.
We don't use a different standard. No player is banned at RHP while reasonable doubt exists.
The two requirements are 1) overwhelming evidence, and 2) proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Prior to game moderation at RHP, accusations of cheating were rife in the RHP forums, but there was no reliable mechanism to resolve them.
That was an era far more reminiscent of McCarthyism and witch hunts than the present.
19 Jan 08
9 edits
Isn't just adding them to your ignore list good enough. Doing so will alert the admin there is a problem.
Rating difference may correlate with the problem. If a player is rated 400 points higher than his opponent then any engine may agree with the moves of the higher rated player. As ratings approach this is less evident. If even a few moves of a player rated 400 points lower than his opponent agree with any engine there is reason for concern.