21 Jan 08
Originally posted by Northern LadWhile I agree with your sentiment, I think everybody has to remember that the game mods are just normal users like everybody else, except they donate a lot of time to keeping the site as engine free as possible.
There is something a little disturbing about people being found guilty without fair and transparent process.
For somebody who doubts one of the game mod's bannings, then it is very easy to invest a little time and run a game or 2 through Fritz/Junior. I just did that with Madmac MacMad's loss to ih8sens, and while data from 1 game cannot be conclusive, the match-up was nearly 100%. The moves that didn't match were moves which weren't markedly inferior from the first choice.
D
21 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by scandiumQuite so. If he were really an impartial but curious observer, he could simply have posted a message asking what criteria are used to determine violation of TOS (3b). If he had done just that, and then, when confronted with the answer that details could not be provided for security reasons, had expressed dissatisfaction with that reticence or with the fact that the process is not transparent, that would have been perfectly reasonable.
Despite your [Yuri's] claims at being "undecided" (which imply being impartial and unbiased), time and again you post statement after statement which always lean heavily in one direction only, which is that banning is unjust. You've flat out said this and you've given reasons why you feel that way; yet whenever challenged or shown the practical refutation t ...[text shortened]... from your original position rather than address the substance of the arguments themselves.
Instead, he began with the presumption that the moderators' (3b) judgments are highly unreliable, though without specifying any reasons for asserting this, and tied the whole thing to the case of ih8sens by suggesting that the impetus for his thread was the fact that he couldn't imagine him cheating. He claims that he simply wanted a discussion, but without providing any grounds for his claims about the moderators' supposed incompetence at detecting engine users, it's unclear what there was to discuss. Apparently he was fishing for a detailed description of the process used to detect engine use.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by tomtom232
This is one of the most popular chess sites on the web because it bans cheaters...all popular chess sites ban cheaters..I think that after all this time if people thought that banning was unjust then they would stop but people just keep on joining.
DEBATE CLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF OVERWHELMING PROOF FOR BANNING BEING JUSTIFIED.
21 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichI'm glad to see (and no that isn't sarcasm) that you've finally come around to our way of seeing things. In a perfect world people wouldn't cheat, their cheating wouldn't have consequences for honest players, detection methods wouldn't be necessary, and sites like RHP wouldn't have to ban them to address the problem.
At any rate, Gatecrasher has pointed out that conditions were worse at this site before the banning policy, and Tomtom claims that in his experience conditions are worse at other sites that don't ban players.
Unfortunately the world isn't perfect, and the current system, however imperfect, is the best one we have - at least until someone invents something better.
Similarly, the need for the exact mechanisms of whatever detection method is used to remain secret is a standard practice meant to address a real world need; which is that the more information cheaters have on the means to detect them, the more easy it becomes for them to evade such measures. And the net result, were it to become public domain, is that the system would then become useless. Thus another necessary evil meant to balance two competing ideals (an environment free of engine users vs. an open and transparent detection process).
Lastly, as to the tone of some of the posts here (presumably including my own, since you've mentioned that before), I can only speak for myself but I'm aware that what I write sometimes can be read in a tone altogether different from what it was written in. That's another internet hazard.
26 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichYou seem to be confusing this with a democracy - this isn't a country, we didn't vote for our leaders, this is a privately owned business. They get to make their own rules. "The management reserves the right to refuse service." Don't like it? Find the Wal-Mart of chess. But then they'll be watching everything about you - not just your chess. Have fun.
I agree with your first sentence completely. I guess where we split is on the point of how effectively cheating can be managed. I'll admit here that I don't know much about how engines work. I use Chessmaster 8000, and that's probably laughable to most people who post here. However, it stands to reason that someone on one side of a computer scr sn't really Yuri Sumnoffabich, and my rating as Yuri will always be pretty meaningless.
Edit: Damn. I should have finished reading the thread.
28 Jan 08
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=72203
Did I miss it, or did somebody post a copy of (or link to) Cludi's earlier explanatory policy post in the general forum? Might have saved everyone a spot of bother if they had. Here's an excerpt:
How do we know if a player is cheating?
The short answer is: A player is cheating if he moves like a computer and not like a human. You may think that it is difficult to spot the difference between strong human play and engine play. It's not. If you carefully analyze game after game the difference stands out like chalk and cheese, as Gatecrasher once put it. We apply a statistical methodology over many, many games that can often highlight patterns of engine abuse that are less than obvious. It's important to add here, that opening book moves are not analyzed at all.
How can we be sure never to ban innocent players?
All players are given the benefit of the doubt. All the players banned for 3(b) on this site have scored significantly higher engine matchups than both current OTB GMs/IMs and pre-computer era CC GMs/IMs. If the best players in the world past and present can come up clean, there is no legitimate reason why some of the players at RHP can't.
Do players get banned based on a single or a few move(s)?
No player was ever banned on the basis of a single or a few moves only, although single moves might have been part of the evidence against them. All players are analyzed until there's no doubt about their guilt. We apply a statistical methodology over many, many games that can often highlight patterns of engine abuse that are less than obvious.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichI agree with you. What does it matter if you are playing a computer or not? So, the computer has a name under RedHotPawn. Play it. Simple as that!!!! At one time, computers were allowed to enter Chess tournamants!
You're missing my point. I'm saying that since there's no way to know whether someone is really cheating or not, it's probably not worth the headache of trying to catch cheaters, much less the witch hunt mentality that doing so creates.
If I play here long enough, I'm sure I'll end up getting beaten by someone who's cheating -- and by plenty of ...[text shortened]... ned as a witch in Salem because he defended others who had been similarly accused.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoComputers are still allowed to enter chess tournaments if the rules of the tournament permit. The difference is that they don't pretend to be something other than a computer.
I agree with you. What does it matter if you are playing a computer or not? So, the computer has a name under RedHotPawn. Play it. Simple as that!!!! At one time, computers were allowed to enter Chess tournamants!
28 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexThat's pretty silly. You'd also have to eliminate large portions of the rules, such as stalemate, threefold repetition of position, and so forth. And if you don't want to lose on time, why play timed games? Also, it's only a "lost game" if you win it. Of course, if I'm playing an opponent in a position which is clearly lost and he obviously has the skills to effect a win under those conditions, then I'll resign rather than waste my own time (and ostensibly his). Fighting to the finish is fine provided someone is not simply making an ass of himself; and if his opponent falters, and fails to win, then the better player was the one who managed the best moves most consistently in the most critical positions. Players are going to make mistakes, especially in amateur games, and if one player gets into a losing position by erring, his opponent might conceivably change the course of the game again, with his own error.
I think they should step up the banning and ban anybody who plays on in a lost position and manages to swindle a draw or win, or worse still wins the game on time. That is almost like being cheated.