Originally posted by Faith No MoreI really do hope that it will be a system that will actually work, something I very much doubt, it seems to me that Trackhead has been accused of cheating aa short time ago and to cover his own back he is on an accusation spree, a diversion tactic maybe?
I think that a system is being made by Trackhead as we speak
The point here is every accusation Trackhead has made I have been analysing. I am off work ill today and a couple of buddies from my chess club have turned up so together for something to do and some extra studying have been analysing the games between Trackhead and his accused. With 2 computers, 3 chess minds what did we find?
That on all games the percentage of possible emulated chess engine moves were no different in either player. So how Trackhead is absolutely sure that said accused is getting engine assistance against him is beyond my comprehension.
So if he builds a system that tackles cheating with the same parameters that he himself uses to judge whether someone is cheating or not does not fill me with confidence that it will work.
I would like to see a foolproof system in place and if Trackhead is the one that can provide this then great, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Lets face it, its easy to PROVE that some of the people on the list are using engines. Not to 100% but you can give odds of a couple of billion to 1 that they have used an engine, if over sufficent games there moves line up to an engines. And some of the people on that list are using programs, i recently left a clan because its leader is using fritz. The people who were accused should come out and have their say and explain how they make the moves engines make for a high precentage of their games and moves. Maybe Track went about this in the wrong way just dropping a bomb shell, but its done. And maybe he got some people wrong ? But he got some people right too, we should be trying to sort out which was right and wrong instead of just bickering like kids in the school yard.
I don't think allegations of serious cheating should be censored. Such accusations aren't inherently implausible: the real-time servers catch computer-cheaters all the time and hit them with that (C) label. I'm given to understand that there are any number of plausible ways to do so. These could include: (a) identifying moves that are tactically 2400 and positionally 1000; (b) to unusual amounts of time taken, ie. moves that take roughly the same amount of "thinking" time in complex tactical situations and with quiet/forced moves (if it takes the same amount of time to calculate a queen sac as a forced recapture, you're either playing a computer or the reincarnation of Tal...) ; (c) unusual rating fluctuations (ie. losing to players at XX level normally, until a prize tournament comes along, then firing up the engine and crushing those players, as well as YY and ZZ, with a huge ratings spike that quickly drops again), (d) massive discrepancies between internet and OTB ratings. Etc. Etc.
On the other hand, they're not inherently credible either. Many of those testing methods wouldn't apply on RHP anyway. (ie. time fluctuations)
If it's trackhead's opinion that X, Y and Z are cheating, both the other players and the people accused would seem to have a legitimate interest in knowing it.
(The girlfriend thing is a bit of a non sequitur. So what if he let his girlfriend make a few moves? I doubt his girlfriend is a GM, at least if that ravello game is any indication...)
Uh... since I'm chiming in on this, against my better judgment, lets just identify any possible biases, eh?
1. I haven't seen the list. I opened this thread for the first time after it was censored. I have suspected a couple people I've played here of computer use, but nobody prominent. Given (a) my low and fluctuating rating and (b) my record of terrible tactical blunders, I can feel confident that I'm not on the list 🙂 ;
2. I'm on record as being against stressing about mod stuff because really, this is only the internet, but that position changes when it turns to stuff that's actually relevant to the chess on the site;
3. I'm also on record as not caring about computer use that much. Which is true. If someone has a 2000 rating, they're going to whop me whether they're using a computer or not. If someone has an 1100 rating, they're probably not using their computer very well. So who cares. Nonetheless, for those who do care, and, admittedly for my own curiousity, it should be public; and
4. I've only played two games with trackhead. I wasn't really sure whether I like him. On the one hand, he made a couple of terribly arrogant comments in one. On the other, he did offer some friendly advice. Needless to say, he wiped the floor with me in each. So there's no personal bias here. (And, in that department, I notice that Shaul and Michelle are on the same side of this debate here. There's a first for everything apparently!)
Originally posted by skeeterJust as an aside and during my coffee break I discussed this today with one of our 'geeks' at work. He reckons a routine could be written to capture screen shots as a logged on player makes his moves. He says the site developers would have to put this on the servers, as well as sending to the clients, but once IP addresses are collected it would then just be a matter of the admins deciding which ones to watch, and for what period.
I say again, if there is a system to detect the engine users then we should be listening and taking notes.
skeeter
Sounds a bit scary to me though...
just to make it publically clear, allowing anyone else to make moves for you or play games under your account is strictly against ToS and is sufficient cause for account deletion. "Allowing" someone includes not taking necessary precautions to prevent them doing so, especially if it has happened before.
It is irrelevent if the other player is better or worse than you. If they want to play they can open their own account.
Jon
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21Well its 6pm now, and me and 2 of my chess club mates have been on 2 computers (both are 3ghz cpu's, 1 has 3gig Ram the other 2) which are quite powerful, analysing 4 of your games for about 7 hours now. And it is quite easy to analyse 4 games in this length of time with 2 computers on the go and 3 very knowledgable chess brains. So like previously stated the percentage of moves that emulated chess engine moves was not particularly high enough to say that he was using an engine, in fact there was hardly any difference between his and your percentage.
And the one only has 9 engines and analyzed for 2 hours?? PM him to ask exactly what kind of analysis he did in such a short amount amount of time when to fully test a single game with one engine can take an hour and usually longer b ...[text shortened]... d what you are talking about before you post as that was just sad.
All I am saying is it is impossible to be 100% sure he was using an engine like you stated, not one of the engines mirrored more than 25% of moves. There was a deviation from book but nothing really enough to convince me of computer assistance.
I wasn't saying that all you accused were not using engines, but I am convinced taht you were wrong on a couple of occasions.
i agree in principle with Trackhead. he is trying to help stamp cheating out. true - he has obviously caused some anger amongst those who are friends of the accused - and may not be able to prove it, but at least he is trying
as for the counter claims made against him that he shouldnt be allownig others to use his account, i have two points to air here.
1) have you ever tried to forbid your girlfriend from doing something?
especially if she lives with you! more than ones life is worth i should imagine.
2) i think this is aimed at those who would be intending to assist the account holder. true to the letter of the law he has broken it, but were they not unrated? and is the law not an ass anyway?
im not going to stand up for him blindly, as i think he shoudve had more proof or perhaps confronted the accused privately first. but i dont think he should be banned/deleted whatever.
Originally posted by pendejoThe problem with this is the way he went about it, publicly accusing people and naming clans without being 100% sure, if he had a genuine grievance, the admin route would have been preferred, there has been enough of public lynching (not all justified) in these forums.
im sorry, but i agree in principle with Trackhead. he is trying to help stamp cheating out. true - he has obviously caused some anger amongst those who are friends of the accused - and may not be able to prove it, but at least he is trying
Edit:- Has anyone stated whether he should be banned? I personally do not want to see him banned, I am just concerned that having a vigilante cheater-killer on the loose in the forums cannot be good for climate.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21That is a lie. I don't know why you said that but I've never spoken a single word to you.
Oh and Dutch clan leader asked me about weyestrass or however the heck you spell his name and I told him what I knew and the guy has even admitted to using an engine and yet I'm sure he's still getting more clan matches than ever.
Maybe you are right about a few persons you seemed to have mentioned, but who cares? You can't prove anything and the only thing you reach is that half of the community here now doesn't like you. Your story about your friend and your month of OTB chess is pretty strange as well, so just stop it.
Olav
EDIT: Hm... saw your post later on thread. Sorry.