Skeeter has gone.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
It's "databases" not "data bases".

Jesus wept ( Help, I can't stop now ).

Another sharp one like gambit! You're right,congrats!

Do my mistakes detract from the validity of my post, you think? Rhetorical question...we're deviating now too much from the subject of this thread, and I just wanted to make a few points.

Originally posted by ptriple42
Another sharp one like gambit! You're right,congrats!

Do my mistakes detract from the validity of my post, you think? Rhetorical question...we're deviating now too much from the subject of this thread, and I just wanted to make a few points.

It's congratulations not congrats. These mistakes have rendered your posts as useful as a chocolate teapot. Leave now before there is further embarrassment.

Originally posted by ayceebee
I don't believe you speak for the "RHP community". Of the 6000-odd members, only a tiny percentage have questioned Skeeter's integrity. As I see it you have achieved a position of "maybe probably" or "maybe probably not" depending on your predisposition to the answer, and since the lady is unable to defend herself, it all leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. ...[text shortened]... by "the status quo around here". This is an internet chess site..what have I missed?

Actually, I do speak on behalf of the RHP community whenever I endorse the official policy of the website (which all members must agree to): "While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party."

You will notice I didn't make any pronouncement on skeeter's guilt or innocence. I said "If it turns out that skeeter was a cheat". Although, Zygalski's analysis does look pretty damning.

You may not mind playing silicon monsters but, if that is the case, then you would be playing someone who has breached the ToS. What "tiny percentage ... of the 6000-odd members" do you think would be willing to play engines?

I'll speak for, and with, the rest in denouncing 3(b) violations.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

why an earth would you keep company with persons who send you lewd messages, please explain?

Originally posted by Green Paladin
We, the RHP community, care. If it turns out that skeeter was a cheat and this information was available to the admins then they did nothing about it. For years. This would go a long way to explaining the status quo around here.

Most people are here to play chess not read the forums. They deserve to be protected from the silicon monsters.

Given that

1. She wasn't banned for cheating despite various allegations being made

2. that admin gave her a severe forum ban

3. that admin have banned much stronger players such as ironman31 and weyerstrasse

4. that admin have now banned her permanently for what appears to have been forum abuse

we have to assume that there was insufficient evidence to ban her previously for engine use.

Regardless of whether people think she was an engine user or not, she was not bigger than the site, as can be evidenced by her being banned. As such it is highly unlikely that admin would retain her as a member, if engine use had been proven at a previous point, given her previous lengthy forum ban.

Given that her average rated opponent was substantially below her average rating, it suggests that she was picking up one or two points from lower rated players enabling her rating to rise to a level which was not commensurate with her chess playing ability.

All we have now is idle gossip and speculation. One camp will say she was a cheat and the other camp will say she wasn't and the merrygoround will continue until we get bored and move on and rip apart the next banned player.

Certainly time to move on in this instance, the merrygoround has nearly stopped.

Originally posted by adramforall
Given that

1. She wasn't banned for cheating despite various allegations being made

2. that admin gave her a severe forum ban

3. that admin have banned much stronger players such as ironman31 and weyerstrasse

4. that admin have now banned her permanently for what appears to have been forum abuse

we have to assume that there was insu ...[text shortened]... ed player.

Certainly time to move on in this instance, the merrygoround has nearly stopped.

I can post some of her wins against top players to prove that she was playing at a 2400 strength.

Some people just don't understand the rating system at all.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Surely the better response would be

"Thank goodness I have a rampant rabbit, that thing of yours would barely touch the sides."

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I was not referring to you in the first, but in the third person, sorry for that misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Zygalski
Ok, fine.
Here's the full results output for all 20 games:

Game 7709081
{ White: Kaoslos }
{ Top 1 Match: 27/41 ( 65.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/41 ( 80.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 36/41 ( 87.8% )
{ Top 4 Match: 39/41 ( 95.1% )

{ Black: skeeter }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/42 ( 66.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/42 ( 83.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 40/42 ( 95.2% )
{ Top 4 Ma ...[text shortened]... his/her talents, rather than cleaning up on the OTB world chess scene & being a household name!

You do a batch on the mod who 1. gave you this tool, 2. told you something in confidence that you blurted out as 'evidence'?

Those would be important numbers to 'compare'.

Thanks in advance.