tell me why I should subscribe here

Originally posted by no1marauder
I realize that English isn't your first language, but an implication doesn't require an explicit statement to the same effect.

Argument ad hominem without reference to posts which may keep with your "straw men" 🙂

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
If I came on a little strong with the "Cheats don't affect lower rated players" idea, I apologize. I don't mean to imply that they don't affect lower rated players. My point is very simple - If someone uses an engine to assist their play, it's very likely that they'll rise in rating, probably to the 2100+ range, where they'll no longer affect lower rated pl ...[text shortened]... t's unfortunate that it's impossible to catch cheaters before they do damage.

Then your "clever" process was/is deficient. There are many obvious cheats operating and if your system can't show that in a reasonable amount of time it needs to be overhauled.

Originally posted by Korch
Argument ad hominem without reference to posts which may keep with your "straw men" 🙂

Huh? I was trying to be kind since you keep showing a profound misunderstanding of what an "implication" is. DragonFire's last sentence in his last post suggests that it's a waste of time to check for engine use under a specific numeral level (i.e. 1200). That necessarily implies that one would be able to cheat without fear of discovery so long as he kept below that level. That's simple logic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Huh? I was trying to be kind since you keep showing a profound misunderstanding of what an "implication" is. DragonFire's last sentence in his last post suggests that it's a waste of time to check for engine use under a specific numeral level (i.e. 1200). That necessarily [b]implies that one would be able to cheat without fear of discovery so long as he kept below that level. That's simple logic.[/b]

Actually he states that higher rated engine users can make much more damage then lower rated ones. So its more important to deal with them.

But I can understand you - misinterpreting opponents text creating "straw man" is much easier that argue against opponent`s arguments 🙂

Originally posted by Korch
Actually he states that higher rated engine users can make much more damage then lower rated ones. So its more important to deal with them.

But I can understand you - misinterpreting opponents text creating "straw man" is much easier that argue against opponent`s arguments 🙂

Actually at one point he claimed that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use. He was wrong as I was nice enough to show him though he incorrectly supposed that said player was not banned for engine use (it helps to actually have some knowledge of the Blobby case).

No "straw man" has been created. DragonFire has clearly stated that it is a waste of time to check users under a certain rating for engine use. That implies (that word you can't seem to understand) that one could cheat so long as they didn't reach said level. You've presented no argument to the contrary instead just parroting untrue claims in every post about my supposed debating techniques. If that's all you have, so be it but you haven't made any sensible points for some pages now.

Since you are attacking my argument, let's state what I said in full rather than your selective quotation:

I don't agree with the implication that cheaters should be able to cheat as long as their rating doesn't get tooooooooo high. If a 1000 or 1100 suddenly starts winning all their games against competition he previously could barely hold his own against, I see no reason to exclude him from scrutiny. If they are found to be cheats, players here will be spared from facing engines in many games.

You disagree with what there?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually at one point he claimed that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use. He was wrong as I was nice enough to show him though he incorrectly supposed that said player was not banned for engine use (it helps to actually have some knowledge of the Blobby case).

No "straw man" has been created. DragonFire has clearly stated that hat's all you have, so be it but you haven't made any sensible points for some pages now.

Actually at one point he claimed that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use. He was wrong as I was nice enough to show him though he incorrectly supposed that said player was not banned for engine use (it helps to actually have some knowledge of the Blobby case).

How it`s related with "his" statement that "cheaters should be able to cheat as long as their rating doesn't get tooooooooo high." ? 🙂

DragonFire has clearly stated that it is a waste of time to check users under a certain rating for engine use. That implies (that word you can't seem to understand) that one could cheat so long as they didn't reach said level.

His text is "If we start on witch hunts looking for sub 1200 engine users we have no chance of dealing with the real problems." I would suggest you to read words "which hunt" (wasting many of time and resources to catch low rated cheaters) and "dealing with real problems". (dealing with higher rated cheaters first).

He did not state that these lower rated cheaters must be allowed to cheat. But being realistic he understands that with restricted resources its not possible to catch all of them so soon. So there should be priorities. And I agree with him that higher rated cheaters are the most dangerous. But from myself I would add that first should be banned the most blatant cheaters which cheating is easier to be proved.

You've presented no argument to the contrary instead just parroting untrue claims in every post about my supposed debating techniques. If that's all you have, so be it but you haven't made any sensible points for some pages now.

You have presented:
1) Arguments ad hominem and personal attacks to your opponents
2) Attributing your opponents with opinion they haven`t stated.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then your "clever" process was/is deficient. There are many obvious cheats operating and if your system can't show that in a reasonable amount of time it needs to be overhauled.

I'd appreciate having the process not labeled as mine. Regardless, as I've stated more than once here, we never really got started. Figuring out the tools, fixing them, and self investigating was really all we got to, besides about 6-7 other investigations, as a rough estimate.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually at one point he claimed that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use. He was wrong as I was nice enough to show him though he incorrectly supposed that said player was not banned for engine use (it helps to actually have some knowledge of the Blobby case).

No "straw man" has been created. DragonFire has clearly stated that e spared from facing engines in many games.

You disagree with what there?

If you can refer me to any post I've made that says what you are misquoting here I would be surprised.

In fact on page 4 of this thread I specifically stated

"(3) any player languishiung in the doldrums who shows a sudden improvement comes under immediate scrutiny".

I believe this would cover your "Mr Blobby" scenario.

The crutial point I am trying to make and that you seem determined to ignore is that once someone starts cheating their rating rises. If you catch them earlier on the way up that is great but if they have been rated 1500 for 000's of games and 6 years then the probability of them cheating is small and it is better to use your resources targeting areas more likely to get results. However, if an unbeaten run suddenly starts with a rise in rating to levels they have not reached before then they should be investigated.

Such targeting of resources will produce far more results than the scatter gun method of investigating everyone that you seem to suggest.

You will always get people like "Mr Blobby" who are so arrogant that they virtually tell you in the forums that they are cheating. These people are easy to catch and easy to catch early.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
If you can refer me to any post I've made that says what you are misquoting here I would be surprised.

In fact on page 4 of this thread I specifically stated

[b]"(3) any player languishiung in the doldrums who shows a sudden improvement comes under immediate scrutiny".

I believe this would cover your "Mr Blobby" scenario.

The cruti e forums that they are cheating. These people are easy to catch and easy to catch early.[/b]

I never suggested "investigating everyone". In fact, I made a detailed set of proposals for the Game Mods (then called "Cheat Police"😉 in December of 2004 here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16944&page=17

Basically, so far as what would trigger an investigation, we agree that a sharp rise in rating should. Where we seem to disagree is that you don't seem to think it's possible for lower rated players to cheat. But there have been numerous examples of 1100's or lower using engines here. Of course, eventually their ratings rose sharply enough so that even the Site Admins could notice (usually after discussions in the forums) but wouldn't it be better to detect these cheats earlier? So if someone complains about a suspicious game played by an 1100 (very high engine match ups for example), then to me it would warrant an immediate investigation.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Actually at one point he claimed that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use. He was wrong as I was nice enough to show him though he incorrectly supposed that said player was not banned for engine use (it helps to actually have some knowledge of the Blobby case).

How it`s related with "his" statement that "cheaters should be able to cheat ...[text shortened]... your opponents
2) Attributing your opponents with opinion they haven`t stated.[/b]

How was his incorrect claim that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use related to his claim that we shouldn't worry too much about low rated cheaters? Figure it out, Einstein.

I for one don't think that investigating and exposing blatant cheats is as hard as you people make it out to be. Anyway, DragonFire says the problem is "exaggerated" (!~TONY~! says by "fifty fold"😉 so since there's so few cheaters, there's no real reason to worry about priorities. And if there were, one priority might be those cheaters who are playing the most games (as they are adversely effecting the most honest players) and those might very well be lower rated cheats.

For the last time, please find an English dictionary and look up the word "implication".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never suggested "investigating everyone". In fact, I made a detailed set of proposals for the Game Mods (then called "Cheat Police"😉 in [b]December of 2004 here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16944&page=17

Basically, so far as what would trigger an investigation, we agree that a sharp rise in rating should ...[text shortened]... h engine match ups for example), then to me it would warrant an immediate investigation.[/b]

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with anything you just wrote, at least I don't. There should be some clear guidelines, and I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to implement some kind of automated system. Something that basically dumps a bunch of names into a casebook based on some criterion. For instance it could just pick a random set of the top 300, and when they've been investigated and cleared/convicted, it picks another random set, and it just keeps going. It also should flag anyone with sharp rises in ratings automatically and dump those people in the book, and also anyone that's gotten a "fair play ticket".

Originally posted by no1marauder
So if someone complains about a suspicious game played by an 1100 (very high engine match ups for example), then to me it would warrant an immediate investigation.

Of course it would. If an 1100 starts to cheat and suddenly plays like a GM then the sooner he is caught the better.

... the point is though, he is no longer playing like an 1100, he is playing like a 2300 and his rating will rise, so he will not remain at 1100.

Also on another point you have made on which we agree is that anyone who is playing a supiciously large number of games well also needs to come under investigation.

I am certain we do not disagree on the fundamentals but merely seem to differ on where and how to direct limited resources.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Of course it would. If an 1100 starts to cheat and suddenly plays like a GM then the sooner he is caught the better.

... the point is though, he is no longer playing like an 1100, he is playing like a 2300 and his rating will rise, so he will not remain at 1100.

Also on another point you have made on which we agree is that anyone who is playing a s ...[text shortened]... gree on the fundamentals but merely seem to differ on where and how to direct limited resources.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How was his incorrect claim that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use related to his claim that we shouldn't worry too much about low rated cheaters? Figure it out, Einstein.

I for one don't think that investigating and exposing blatant cheats is as hard as you people make it out to be. Anyway, DragonFire says the problem is " r the last time, please find an English dictionary and look up the word "implication".

How was his incorrect claim that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use

Quiting DF:

"someone who is statically at 1500 is probably not using an engine and if he is it is having a negligible impact on his results as it is either:
(1) a very poor engine (the chess engine with Windows Vista comes to mind);
(2) he is using it very badly; or
(3) he is using it for the odd move that is not affecting the result of the game. "

Is that claim that no one below 1500 is cheating when he models possible reasons why cheater can have 1500 rating?

For the last time, please find an English dictionary and look up the word "implication".

For the last time - please find some books about logic and good manners.

[i/]Originally posted by Korch[/i]
[b]How was his incorrect claim that no one under 1500 was ever banned for engine use

Quiting DF:

[i/]"someone who is statically at 1500 is probably not using an engine and if he is it is having a negligible impact on his results as it is either:
(1) a very poor engine (the chess engine with Windows Vista comes to mind);
(2) he is using it very bad ...[text shortened]... y mplication".[/b]

For the last time - please find some books about logic and good manners.[/b]

DF: Perhaps you would be kind enough to post in this thread those rated 1500 who have been banned. Of course if your insinuation is merely a baseless allegation and there are not any players at this level that have actually been banned for engine use perhaps you would be kind enough to PM me, Korch and others with whom you disagree on his point the evidence.

You were saying?