tell me why I should subscribe here

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Korch that's your favorite strawman, you even tried that on me when the going got rough. Fact is your posts are generally so silly and illogical i don't even bother responding to them.

Your main "arguments" are ignorance and bad manners. You should understand my boy that I`m catching fun with you now 🙂

Originally posted by eldragonfly
But in almost every post you go out of your way to downplay the importance of cheaters and engine users below some magic arbitrary number.

In every post you make, you make a point of misinterpreting and misquoting me.

I am not and never have down played anything.

What I have repeatedly said, that you seem to ignore, is that resources need to be prioritised by targeting the most likely areas, the biggest problems and the easiest to catch and I have suggested ways of doing this.

There will always be childish idiots rated 1300-1500 who admit in the forums that they are cheating in some way and these are, of course, the easiest to catch and ban and doing this does not take any resources what so ever. However, it remains my opinion (and the majority of experienced players here) that as a general rule attempting to investigate people in this rating bracket for engine use would be a misdirection of scarce resources. This does not mean they should not be investigated but that their investigation should not be a priority area.

Of course it is possible that a player rated 1400 is rated 1400 because they only use an engine against strong opponents so they lose to 1200 regularly but beat 1800+ without putting a foot wrong. The reason these people are potentially difficult to catch is that they are only using an engine infrequently and so in this area the "mod team" needs to rely on feedback from players. Once such a player is flagged I would suggest that such occasional engine use actually become easier to catch than the more consistent use as it will soon become apparent that the cheater is a patzer achieving high engine match ups consistently against strong players but blundering every 3rd move against weak opponents. Searching out "engine type moves" for such players becomes unnecessary and the high match up rates against their strong opponents becomes sufficient evidence.

These are obvious areas where we are dealing with the ignorant and stupid engine user. My suggestions were, however, intended to be practical suggestions in the direction of resources to the more serious problem of identifying the knowledgable and devious engine user rather than the stupid patzer. The engine user rated below 1500 comes into my stupid patzer category who is likely to give himself away fairly easily once he embarks down this track.

The engine user who is genuinely rated above 1500 (this is an arbitary rating so maybe we should be talking 1600 or even 1700) is much harder to catch as he already knows quite a bit about chess and the stronger he gets the harder it gets to catch him. So, for example, moving to the other extreme a player genuinely rated 2300 who decides to use an engine simply to blundercheck his moves may become virtually impossible to catch and could easily maintain a position in the top 5 on the site attracting suspicion but giving no conclusive proof.

In between these 2 extremes we have the area where, in my opinion, resources need to be directed. These are the players genuinely rated between 1500 and 2100 (again an arbitary range, it could be 1600-2200 or 1700-1900) who either join the site immediately using an engine or reach a plateau and then decide instead of actually studying and learning they should use an engine to move up to the next level.

One wonders why players in this category should bother to use an engine as they are already quite good at chess but they do and unfortunately these players are the hardest to catch and need the most resources. Hence my suggestions and focusing in this area.

I would like to end this by saying that I think the patzer who uses an engine from day 1 gives away his ignorance in more ways than 1 early in the proceedings and with a vigilant community and active "mod team" it should be possible to identify and eliminate these players early (i.e. before they reach say 1500-1700) but I have never defined these players as a 1500 player (they might be rated 1500 but they are playing at a far higher level - they just have not got there yet).

My definition of a 1500 player is a player who is graded 1500, who has been that level for a while, who plays at this level beating 1200s and losing to 1800s with the odd upset. In short he has the sort of profile you would expect from any genuinely 1500 player. To assume to site is infested with cheats among such players is simply wrong and a misdirection of resources and effort. This can apply to any level be it 1300 or 1700. The results of such games would fall within a normal distribution curve - where they do don't waste time on investigation and where they don't they get flagged and their wins against stronger opposition investigated. For all I know such statistical tools already form part of the investigation process.

My point is limited resources need to be carefully targeted to produce the best possible results. I think No1mauruder recognises this but eldragonfly can't seem to grasp the concepts so resorts to meaningless insults and nothing practical what-so-ever.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
But in almost every post you go out of your way to downplay the importance of cheaters and engine users below some magic arbitrary number.

Yeah, it's an arbitrary number. You seem to not understand his opinion. Cheaters at higher levels cause more damage. They should be hunted first. Imagine two crooks. One steels a watch, the other one robs a bank. Which one would police try to catch first? There are much more cheaters here than game mods so the main action should be against the higher rated ones first.

EDIT: Btw, this has gone pretty off-topic.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
In every post you make, you make a point of misinterpreting and misquoting me.

I am not and never have down played anything.

What I have repeatedly said, that you seem to ignore, is that resources need to be prioritised by targeting the most likely areas, the biggest problems and the easiest to catch and I have suggested ways of doing this.

Wrong. You are just shifting your position and once again find it necessary to preface your remarks with worthless, gutless and childish ad hominems, always whining like a spoiled child, instead of admitting that some of your unfortunate and silly statements just didn't make any sense. i agree that cheaters should be detected and then promptly removed from the site, but your generalizations about prioritizing resources misses the mark.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Wrong. You are just shifting your position and once again find it necessary to preface your remarks with worthless, gutless and childish ad hominems, always whining like a spoiled child, instead of admitting that some of your unfortunate and silly statements just didn't make any sense. i agree that cheaters should be detected and then promptly removed from the site, but your generalizations about prioritizing resources misses the mark.

I have never shifted my position. I may have clarified it somewhat but I have not shifted.

At least I have a position that is supported by some logical reasoning whether or not you agree with it but I have just looked back on your last 100 forum posts and I see 100 insults and not a single meaningful post whatsoever. I have certainly seen nothing practical from you as a suggested method of catching the guilty.

Now leave me be. I've just got 6 excellent new books, Mega Database 2008 and a few other toys. So I am going to load it all up and then use these lovely new tools to beat a few more worthy opponents who are not engines and, maybe if I get a chance a few engine users as well.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
and kbaumen your thick metaphor is rather silly.

Ha, you call it silly and don't even bother to argue with it because you can't. All you can do is call me and everyone else silly, illogical and stoopid. Now who's being silly here? Oh yeah, the ad hominems are haunting you. Goodbye.

EDIT: On the other hand, I hope you never get banned. Even if you have the ability to ruin any thread, you put some gasoline in the fire of this forum.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
[b]I have never shifted my position. I may have clarified it somewhat but I have not shifted.

At least I have a position that is supported by some logical reasoning [/b]

You have shifted your position when you clarified it, your gutless ad hominem rich posts can only attest to this fact. Your claims were unreasonable and found to be in error, still you pretend to have all the answers. Show me the logic, that is beyond your now mitigated position, your careless attributions, your faulty assumptions, your illogical red herrings and your supremely childish and redundant ad hominems.

Originally posted by kbaumen
Ha, you call it silly and don't even bother to argue with it because you can't. All you can do is call me and everyone else silly, illogical and stoopid. Now who's being silly here? Oh yeah, the ad hominems are haunting you. Goodbye.

and kbaumen your faux comparison, thick metaphor, childish mud slinging, etc speaks for itself.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You have shifted your position when you clarified it, your gutless ad hominem rich posts can only attest to this fact. Your claims were unreasonable and found to be in error, still you pretend to have all the answers. Show me the logic, tha tis beyond your now mitigated position, your careless attributions, your faulty assumptions, your illogical red herrings and your supremely childish and redundant ad hominems.

Your daddy's going to be so upset when he finds out you've stolen his thesaurus.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
and kbaumen your faux comparison, thick metaphor, childish mud slinging, etc speaks for itself.

And this isn't mud slinging?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
[..]Show me the logic, that is beyond your now mitigated position, your careless attributions, your faulty assumptions, your illogical red herrings and your supremely childish and redundant ad hominems.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You have shifted your position when you clarified it, your gutless ad hominem rich posts can only attest to this fact. Your claims were unreasonable and found to be in error, still you pretend to have all the answers. Show me the logic, that is beyond your now mitigated position, your careless attributions, your faulty assumptions, your illogical red herrings and your supremely childish and redundant ad hominems.

Before you continue to embarrass yourslef with more pointless posts may I suggest you start by looking up the meanings of the word you use.

Start with ad hominem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem when you will notice it applies to your arguments and (lack of) reasoning not mine.

Originally posted by kbaumen
And this isn't mud slinging?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
[b][..]Show me the logic, that is beyond your now mitigated position, your careless attributions, your faulty assumptions, your illogical red herrings and your supremely childish and redundant ad hominems.[/b]

🙄

Originally posted by eldragonfly
and kbaumen your faux comparison, thick metaphor, childish mud slinging, etc speaks for itself.

i.

if i pull a thick
metaphor
out of a thin
hat, will you bring your ruler?

ii.

measure this:

i slide down the curve of your spine and whisper Silk Smooth Paper
(thickness of metaphor, 385 gsm)
i tap the skin there, press keyboard-button bones
(size of metaphor, Lucida Sans 14 pt, Bold)
and make the word dapple
--i’m about to express how your skin is the sun peeking through the trees as
seen fragmented on bare geography--

iii.

someone said it’s all about contraction; making a smaller simile. For
example:

the long version:
Wait, wait for me, will you? Adventure tells me I have to go. I’ll be back.
Stay. Like An Obedient Pet. Stay. And if you close your heart to all the
others, I’ll come back Like A Treat, Like A Fat Chicken Biscuit.

the short version:
Be my Penelope.

iv.


Aristotle didn’t speak of thick or thin, just metafora--
giving you a name
taken from someone else--

You are my Ted
(as in Hughes, Poet-Man-God; height of metaphor, over 6ft tall),
my Sweet
thing (as in John or chocolate, weight of metaphor, 90 kilos or 250 grams,
respectively).

Diomedes didn’t speak of size, either; but of shifting
meaning from proper to improper, for the sake of:

a. beauty (your dappled sunlight smile warms my brow)
b. necessity (i frame you, my dappled-red Picasso, in the tortured gallery
of my mind)
c. polish (your whisper, dappled promise of early afternoon in the park)
and d. emphasis (the dapple-drawn puzzle of your heart)

v.

sometimes i’ll speak metaphors you won’t notice, so familiar
by now (you’re my Araki bud; my red
my red my red my red my red
rose; will love ever
bloom in the desert of your heart?),
they must have been vivid
once but they’ve shriveled;
melted fat into thin common bones.
Death does that.

vi.

watch me pull a thick metaphor
out of a thin hat, call me poet
and love me for it


With thanks to
Kathryn Koromilas
(MiPo Zines)

with a nod to Gerard Manley Hopkins

LOVE AND THICK METAPHORS

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Start with ad hominem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem when you will notice it applies to your arguments and (lack of) reasoning not mine.

Ahhhh.... the "definitions" game. Truly the mark of someone who doesn't have alot to say, and as is extremely obvious here, clearly lacks any critical thinking skillz.

Wrong as usual dragonfire. You are not addressing the issues, only engaging in witless personal attacks and your now trademark faulty rebuttals.