03 Jan 10
Originally posted by wormwoodYes.
...
now, the problem is that known cheaters don't get kicked regardless of overwhelming evidence. it turns out there are players who were investigated and found out years ago already, BUT for some unknown reason the admins refused then and later to ban them. THAT is the real problem...
This is the crux of the matter & unfortunately totally negates everything that the Forum Mod has posted in here about going through the correct channels.
I went through the proper procedure with some very high quality objective evidence.
The Untouchable in question was not banned, despite Games Mods recommending a ban to Russ.
Ho-hum...
03 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Traveling Againit's pointless in the same way as it would be to bet on a roulette wheel that stops on the 'house wins' pocket every single time. the game was rigged, you never had a chance. no point in playing.
I'm a casual player who can't tell an engine from a monkey from my left hand. I've
been reading these cheating/engine threads and for the most part I understand the
frustrations, especially in cases where there seems to be very clear evidence.
But what I don't understand (and I'm genuinely interested to try to understand) is
why it IS such a velihood at stake -- ok I'd understand. But on this site, why does it REALLY matter?
in addition to that, engines play engine moves. grandmasters play human moves. there's nothing to understand about an engine move, because the engine doesn't understand the position either. there's nothing to learn from that. no 'aahs' or 'oohs' of gaining insight, just a cold emotionless stream of binary vomit spit at your face. which as far as the engine can see isn't dropping material, unless it happened to miss that because of its pruning algorithm. statistically speaking it manages to avoid howlers within its horizon just enough to beat the humans, but beyond that it has no clue what it's doing. it could be generating random numbers or running idle process just as well, it can't tell the difference. there is no difference as far as it's considered.
where as the human will have ideas, principles, strategies and most importantly a plan behind the move. something to understand, to learn from, even when there's a tactic he missed which killed the move. there's more merit to kramniks move when he famously missed getting mated in one move than any engine move ever played. there's insight to be gained, enjoyment from understanding and learning, even beauty. that's why we play, why we use a ridiculous amount of time and effort on our games.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 05
- Moves
- 145614
03 Jan 10
No1maurader's proposal from that thread, in case you are too lazy to click on the link
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n number of complaints which are adjudged to be genuine and not for the purposes of harassment and/or "sorelosership".
2. The player who was being investigated would be informed of the investigation by PM and the reason for it. He would be given an opportunity to admit or deny cheating. If he denies cheating, he would be given a chance to produce evidence supporting his denial and would be entitled to study any evidence being used against him in the investigation.
3. The cheat police would make a finding in the case as to whether the player had cheated. Such a finding would be based on a "clear and convincing" evidence standard and would require the positive vote of a large majority of the cheat police, perhaps 3/4 agreeing that the person had cheated. The player would be informed of this finding and of the results of the vote (a number not how individuals voted)
4. The finding would be forwarded to the site admins. The player would have a chance to PM Russ disagreeing with the finding or producing mitigating circumstances. Russ would then make a final decision and publicly announce it.
I would tend to think that either a ban from the site or a ban from clan and tournaments games would be acceptable. I would support an amnesty only if the player who had cheated confessed to the site admins and was placed on some sort of probation to be monitored by the cheat police, although his name need not be made public.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by SilverstrikerI would modify 4 to require that the Site Admins make a final decision within 30 days after the submission of the recommendation of banning from the "Cheat Police". I would modify the last paragraph to make disclosure of the name of any player placed on probation mandatory.
[b] No1maurader's proposal from that thread, in case you are too lazy to click on the link
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n number of complaints which are adjudge ...[text shortened]... rt of probation to be monitored by the cheat police, although his name need not be made public.[/b]
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27921
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainLearning to improve your chess by playing against a computer is a bit like learning to run faster by racing against a Ferrari. Humans and machines work differently - the way that a human thinks about chess is completely different to the way that a computer analyses a position. That's not to say that chess programs aren't useful tools and, on a suitably dumbed-down level, interesting opponents, especially for openings, endgames, and tactical training. But playing against any of the major engines on full strength is just a soul destroying waste of time.
... So an engine is stronger than you, isn't there anything to be
learned from the match? Maybe not, I don't know. ...
As far as cheating is concerned, I agree with various people that engine match-up rates are a good indicator, but these will only catch people who use the engine all the time. Someone who plays the opening and endgame in meat-space and only analyses one or two tricky positions per game on an engine would still gain a huge advantage. To be fair to the RHP guys, I think this kind of cheating would be very very hard to detect.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by aquatabbythe advantage would be negligible, as he wouldn't get the advantage of fool-proof blunder checking. the one or two good moves would be like drop in the ocean against 40 crap moves.
Someone who plays the opening and endgame in meat-space and only analyses one or two tricky positions per game on an engine would still gain a huge advantage.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by aquatabbyThank you, that makes sense.
Learning to improve your chess by playing against a computer is a bit like learning to run faster by racing against a Ferrari. Humans and machines work differently - the way that a human thinks about chess is completely different to the way that a computer analyses a position. That's not to say that chess programs aren't useful tools and, on a suitably dum ...[text shortened]... . To be fair to the RHP guys, I think this kind of cheating would be very very hard to detect.
Just to play devil's advocate -- would you say that as a 2100+ rated player that learning
to play chess by playing a sub-1200 player would be like learning to run faster by racing
a toaster?
Point is, a lot of high rated players on this site join open tournaments and will often face
much, much lower rated players. Is this "waste of time" any different than wasting time
against an engine? The way I see it, if I were rated that high I'd actually be more
interested in playing a strong engine. How much do rating points come into
consideration? Just a thought.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27921
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by wormwoodOk, I'll redefine 'huge advantage' :-)
the advantage would be negligible, as he wouldn't get the advantage of fool-proof blunder checking. the one or two good moves would be like drop in the ocean against 40 crap moves.
Against an opponent of equal strength, I think using an engine occasionaly during the game would tip the balance in favour of the cheater enough to inflate his rating by X .. where X is some positive integer. Probably about 100-200, but that's a guess.
I totally agree that it wouldn't be enough to consistently grace the high 2000s, unless the cheater was already a good player in the first place.
At the risk of being slapped on the wrist, I could add that this is not entirely hypothetical. I've had one or two opponents around the 1800 level who have played fairly average chess most of the game and then suddenly make a couple of super-sharp moves, and then having won material go back to making sloppy moves. As I said, it's very hard to prove anything - maybe they just got lucky making those moves, who knows. But I think as a form of cheating, it would work well. The second time this happened I raised a fair play ticket, but didn't hear anything back.
To end on a good note, 2 possibly suspicious cases out of the hundreds of people I've played is a pretty good percentage. At the sub 2000 level, I don't think it's a huge issue.
03 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Traveling AgainIn that case, probably playing against an engine would be much more helpful. A 2100 rated player could probably give rook odds to a 1200 rated player and win.
Thank you, that makes sense.
Just to play devil's advocate -- would you say that as a 2100+ rated player that learning
to play chess by playing a sub-1200 player would be like learning to run faster by racing
a toaster?
Point is, a lot of high rated players on this site join open tournaments and will often face
much, much lower rated pl ying a strong engine. How much do rating points come into
consideration? Just a thought.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainSome interesting points here. Some thoughts in return.
Is this "waste of time" any different than wasting time against an engine? If I were rated that high I'd actually be more interested in playing a strong engine. How much do rating points come into consideration?
If chess is nothing more than moves coming across a board, then it doesn't make much difference who or what supplies the move - human or engine. In which case, we may as well both switch on our engines and watch the pretty patterns they make.
But chess isn't just that by any means. It's the application of human creativity circumscribed by a set of rules. Whoever in the contest manages the rules the more creatively, wins. That is the purpose of chess - and not much else.
Now, throw a machine into the mix, and the contest becomes unfair. Managing the rules of chess is far, far easier for a machine than for a human. No one requires that the machine be creative either, merely more efficient, in order to win. Humans on the other hand are relatively inefficient in their creativity. This difference emerges when humans become frustrated at the 'relentlessness' of the machine. The machine never errs; one human slip and the game is gone. That's not how it is in human-human interaction - there's always a 'sporting chance' of regaining one's equilibrium.
I think it's the absence of a 'sporting chance' that renders a game against an engine such a waste of time. Sporting contests are based on human frailty. No frailty, no sport.