02 Dec 08
My head hurts. I've been trying to follow this thread but my poor old grey matter simply isn't up to the task.
Anyone able to sumarise in 10 lines or less the points attempting to be made here?
Surely if the top players of all time have an engine match-up rate of a certain percentage, anyone playing here with a level higher than that is suspect? Its seems to me that you're all agreeing on that point. If so, why not just leave it to the game moderators whom presumably have gone through this whole process already in order to come up with a way to catch 'em at it?
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by BigMickThe whole point of the thread is that games moderators have no powers to ban - only to recommend.
My head hurts. I've been trying to follow this thread but my poor old grey matter simply isn't up to the task.
Anyone able to sumarise in 10 lines or less the points attempting to be made here?
Surely if the top players of all time have an engine match-up rate of a certain percentage, anyone playing here with a level higher than that is suspect? Its se ...[text shortened]... e gone through this whole process already in order to come up with a way to catch 'em at it?
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by BigMickI don't think that's entirely true, I think on a certain level the style of play determines the match-up. I think people like Karpov have a much lower match rate than players who adopt a more tactical (computer-like) style, even if they are inferior in strength.
Surely if the top players of all time have an engine match-up rate of a certain percentage, anyone playing here with a level higher than that is suspect?
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI do know the difference. I assume you mean in a mathematical sense?
No, it doesn't. You should know the difference between necessary and sufficient.
So, high match up implies engine use but engine use does not imply high match up. Conversely, we cannot say that low match up implies no engine use. That makes sense. Except here we have a clear case where high match up apparently does not imply engine use. Unless "high" is a function of the person investigated which doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest. I think the rule needs to be rewritten.
High match up implies engine use except in so far as it doesn't.
That seems clear. Clear as mud. I think the problem here is the process, whatever it may be, is not mathematical proof. There is a statistical element which indicates uncertainty in the results to start with. There may also be other factors involved. We have already had various knowledgeable people telling us that high match up is a major factor but there are other factors that need to be taken into account. We have also been told that no one is banned on the evidence of match up alone.
I interpret the foregoing to mean that high match up rate is sufficient but not on its own. Mathematically, we would have a statement of the form
(High match up) and (some other factor) implies engine use.
I don't think it is even that clear cut since the "other factor" in that statement might change in each case and there may well be multiple factors to take into account.
I hope this is the case. If not, the approved method for obtaining match up rates and what is meant by "high" has been discussed often enough on these forums to give the cheats sufficient information to evade detection already.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by KeplerNo, I didn't.
Did you have any difficulty detecting the use of engines other than Fritz 8 when you were using Fritz 8?
Do you have any difficulty now you use Fritz 10?
There should be an effect if one is matching engine to same engine. I can detect games played by HIARCS with ease if I use HIARCS but I would have thought that I should still get some kind of signal if using another engine indicative of the presence of HIARCS.
No, I don't.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by KeplerYour logic skills are astounding. What would happen if the match-up rates of that player were, say, 10% higher? Would those be sufficient?
I do know the difference. I assume you mean in a mathematical sense?
So, high match up implies engine use but engine use does not imply high match up. Conversely, we cannot say that low match up implies no engine use. That makes sense. Except here we have a clear case where high match up apparently does not imply engine use. Unless "high" is a function of ...[text shortened]... h on these forums to give the cheats sufficient information to evade detection already.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by PalynkaHow would I know? I am not the one who has the task of judging these things. As I said before I do not know what the game mods do, I do not know what the threshold for match ups is (if there is one) and that was not part of what I was trying to accomplish. If you know I suggest you keep it to yourself.
Your logic skills are astounding. What would happen if the match-up rates of that player were, say, 10% higher? Would those be sufficient?
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by KeplerI just demonstrated why your inferences about the opening post were rash and obtuse. I suggest you keep your future ones to yourself.
How would I know? I am not the one who has the task of judging these things. As I said before I do not know what the game mods do, I do not know what the threshold for match ups is (if there is one) and that was not part of what I was trying to accomplish. If you know I suggest you keep it to yourself.
02 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerOf course you missed it, you're an idiot. Your post makes no sense unless you assume that the threshold for sufficient conditions is not above the one of the opening post. An assumption that you pulled out of your backside.
Really? I missed that. Sorry.
Feel free to carry on pummelling if you wish.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, that's where it came from. You know, you will not win many debates by resorting to insults. Apparently I am stupid, possible I'll admit. I am an idiot, well that would go with stupid I suppose. Also I cannot read. Why, then, do you persist in writing stuff for me to read?
Of course you missed it, you're an idiot. Your post makes no sense unless you assume that the threshold for sufficient conditions is not above the one of the opening post. An assumption that you pulled out of your backside.
I am happy to continue as long as you need something to vent your frustration and anger on but you are not actually getting anywhere with this. Is there something you want from all this or do you just want to keep pummelling?
02 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerI've ceased to want a meaningful discussion with you from the moment I realize you didn't want one. I made it clear in this thread when that moment was. Now all I'm doing is pouring my scorn on your pathetic insistence.
Oh, that's where it came from. You know, you will not win many debates by resorting to insults. Apparently I am stupid, possible I'll admit. I am an idiot, well that would go with stupid I suppose. Also I cannot read. Why, then, do you persist in writing stuff for me to read?
I am happy to continue as long as you need something to vent your frustration and ...[text shortened]... e with this. Is there something you want from all this or do you just want to keep pummelling?
Edit - The poster on top this page figured it all out. There's already a one-man-excepted-consensus on the things that matter.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by PalynkaWell carry on then. I am going to be teaching in about 30 minutes and won't be back for about three hours. You will have to talk to yourself for a while but, rest assured, I will return.
I've ceased to want a meaningful discussion with you from the moment I realize you didn't want one. I made it clear in this thread when that moment was. Now all I'm doing is pouring my scorn on your pathetic insistence.