I have finished my analysis of Skeeter's games in the batch supplied by SB/Z. I used Rybka 2.2 at 128 for 30 seconds. This has been more than sufficient in the past to ID blatant engine users.
My matchup results are in excess of SB/Z's: 63.3 1st; 82.0 1st/2nd; 88.8 1st/2nd/3rd. Such rates are beyond the capability of a non-engine assisted human player as shown by results of analyses of OTB GMs and CC GMs before the advent of chess programs. Therefore, the case that Skeeter was using an engine is proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.
15 Jan 12
Thanks for that!
I know what a pain doing the analysis by hand is.
Both our analyses confirm that there was overwhelming evidence skeeter used an engine to suggest moves in non-database positions in many games over time.
The plot thickens as to why skeeter wasn't booted for engine use well over a year ago...
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI for one am flabbergasted by this revelation, and I might add more than a little saddened to think that someone who was so persistent and vitriolic in her hounding of whom she saw as engine users should be proved to be one herself.
I have finished my analysis of Skeeter's games in the batch supplied by SB/Z. I used Rybka 2.2 at 128 for 30 seconds. This has been more than sufficient in the past to ID blatant engine users.
My matchup results are in excess of SB/Z's: 63.3 1st; 82.0 1st/2nd; 88.8 1st/2nd/3rd. Such rates are beyond the capability of a non-engine assiste ...[text shortened]... Therefore, the case that Skeeter was using an engine is proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.
Is there really no “benefit of doubt” given that, as I understand she only played a very narrow range of openings and this is correspondence not OTB play, I am not being disrespectful of the analysis and hard work done by the previous posters but only maybe a little naive. oh well.
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by Cardiganthe bottom line is: it is not a 100% proven thing. it is a strong indication. it is even, as no1 says, beyond reasonable doubt.
I for one am flabbergasted by this revelation, and I might add more than a little saddened to think that someone who was so persistent and vitriolic in her hounding of whom she saw as engine users should be proved to be one herself.
Is there really no “benefit of doubt” given that, as I understand she only played a very narrow range of openings and this ...[text shortened]... the analysis and hard work done by the previous posters but only maybe a little naive. oh well.
the remaining question was stated before: if this is beyond reasonable doubt, why didnt she get banned by the mods for engine use? there are two likely answers: it was not beyond reasonable doubt for the mods or there is something seriously wrong with rhp when it comes to banning engine users...
Originally posted by tharkeshMods don't have the power to ban - they can only make recommendations to Admin who make the final decisions:
the bottom line is: it is not a 100% proven thing. it is a strong indication. it is even, as no1 says, beyond reasonable doubt.
the remaining question was stated before: if this is beyond reasonable doubt, why didnt she get banned by the mods for engine use? there are two likely answers: it was not beyond reasonable doubt for the mods or there is something seriously wrong with rhp when it comes to banning engine users...
Here's what a former games mod had to say about this issue in the open forum:
4th Jan 2010
Thread 123804
"I've done more game modding on this site than anyone.
There are few things more frustrating than the inaction of the owners of this site when the evidence of cheating against a player is clear, unambiguous and overwhelming.
Yes, on the one hand, the owners can exercise their prerogative, and stay their hand, to do "what is best" for their business. But I'm convinced that it is never good for the long term health of their business to tolerate cheating. Nor is it good to undermine the work of volunteers working to keep the site clean.
If the current system is not working effectively, and I agree that it is not, it is because of the owners' lip service to zero tolerance, while in reality the conviction and commitment to this policy is half hearted at best.
Would you feel inclined to volunteer your services, if your efforts were randomly assessed, haphazardly acted upon, or selectively ignored?
An urgent, self-inflicted kick up the backside is needed, Russ and Chris."
28th Sept 2010
Thread 134265
"...The bottom line is that the admins don't have the inclination to ban everyone proven to be a cheat, so they just make sample gestures from time to time. The problem with that is a) cheats continue to cheat and get away with it and b) moderators who give up their time to analyse suspected cheats are discouraged when their efforts are ignored and wasted.
It is ironic that a competing site is now aggressively employing the methodology perfected here to kick their cheats while "zero tolerance" at RHP takes on a bizarre new meaning."
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by Zygalskinot good. thanks for posting.
Mods don't have the power to ban - they can only make recommendations to Admin who make the final decisions:
Here's what a former games mod had to say about this issue in the open forum:
4th Jan 2010
Thread 123804
"I've done more game modding on this site than anyone.
There are few things more frustrating than the inaction of the ...[text shortened]... ck their cheats while "zero tolerance" at RHP takes on a bizarre new meaning."
15 Jan 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedthese things were discussed before. so far, none of the mentioned points has led to a significant increase in the match-up rates. however, really reliable numbers can not be put on those, just educated guesses.
hence the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Originally posted by tharkeshIt isn't 100% proven that you will be killed from a bullet shot from point blank range
the bottom line is: it is not a 100% proven thing. it is a strong indication. it is even, as no1 says, beyond reasonable doubt.
the remaining question was stated before: if this is beyond reasonable doubt, why didnt she get banned by the mods for engine use? there are two likely answers: it was not beyond reasonable doubt for the mods or there is something seriously wrong with rhp when it comes to banning engine users...
into your chest either.
If you don't believe the evidence, bow your chest Superman!!
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34What I'm saying, again, is 10 pages of players over 2000 out of 534 pages of players = roughly 1.8 % of the RHP population. Over and over the top page players get banned. At this point, I do not believe you can be on page one, without cheating.
Cheers No1.
I'm happy with that. No argument from me.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by ExumaI know that is not the case.
What I'm saying, again, is 10 pages of players over 2000 out of 534 pages of players = roughly 1.8 % of the RHP population. Over and over the top page players get banned. At this point, I do not believe you can be on page one, without cheating.