09 Jul 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIn that case it is the title of the thread that is in error. Much of the content has been a discussion (or squabble, take your pick) about the extent of engine use on this site whereas the title of the thread asks for opinions on subscribing.
That is simply untrue. In the first post, the OP said this:
NorrisB: I have no desire to play in a siege or in a tournament forced to play [b]some engine user for a worthless title.
!~TONY~! responded (in the second post) by claiming that cheating doesn't effect the vast majority of players here and that the amount ...[text shortened]... posts are all relevant to those claims though !~TONY~! has retreated from at least the first.[/b]
To be absolutely fair, most of the posts, regardless of who posted, them have been irrelevant to the advertised point of this thread. That would include any contribution that I have made.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by Keplerad hominem= logical fallacy.
I would expect that if a site is "absolutely overrun" then the vast majority (say 90%+) of players would actually be engines.
Too arbitrary, your incoherent idiotic assertion/dull question isn't salvageable nor is it even remotely relevant. Even if only 50% of users were cheating, it still would be a big problem. Obviously cheating is a big problem if other sites like ICC and playchess have elaborate software to detect enginer users, and highly rated users are discovered to be engine cheats.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyAs many as 50% eh? That's a lot. So there is a 0.5 probability that eldragonidiot is a cheat. I'll take those odds.
ad hominem= logical fallacy.
Too arbitrary, your incoherent idiotic assertion/dull question isn't salvageable nor is it even remotely relevant. Even if only 50% of users were cheating, it still would be a big problem. Obviously cheating is a big problem if other sites like ICC and playchess have elaborate software to detect enginer users, and highly rated users are discovered to be engine cheats.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI am disappointed that you misquote me now.
No1 never said what you are saying about 1300 players.
Blobby was removed for engine use, that is FACT. It was chessmaster.
You stated something like, "Most 3b users were not engine users at all".
What would make you say something as fact that you have no clue about?
No1 submitted Tens of names, and watched them removed based on real evidence he ...[text shortened]... s fact and don't put words in No1's mouth and he wont need to tell you you are wrong.
P-
What I said was "Many of the 3(b) players have been banned for getting assistance other than engine assistance". I don't know how many and cannot prove it one way or the other but neither can you.
However I am certainly not trying to claim other than many were banned for engine use also.
I have never said "Most 3b users were not engine users at all".
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireThe full relevant quote was "Many of the 3(b) players have been banned for getting assistance other than engine assistance, maybe even most". You conveniently left out the part in bold.
I am disappointed that you misquote me now.
[b]What I said was "Many of the 3(b) players have been banned for getting assistance other than engine assistance". I don't know how many and cannot prove it one way or the other but neither can you.
However I am certainly not trying to claim other than many were banned for engine use also.
I have never said "Most 3b users were not engine users at all".[/b]
The statement is incorrect anyway; I can't recall a single player banned for "getting assistance other than engine assistance", never mind "many".
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI have no problem with this and if No1 has submiited much conclusive evidence he is to be commended and I hope he continues to do so.
No1 never said what you are saying about 1300 players.
Blobby was removed for engine use, that is FACT. It was chessmaster.
You stated something like, "Most 3b users were not engine users at all".
What would make you say something as fact that you have no clue about?
No1 submitted Tens of names, and watched them removed based on real evidence he ...[text shortened]... s fact and don't put words in No1's mouth and he wont need to tell you you are wrong.
P-
Where I have an issue is the insane point that the site is invested with cheaters in the 1300-1500 bracket. Maybe Mr Blobby was an 800 player who started to cheat and rose to 1300 before he was caught (probably due to his idiotic posting in the forum but maybe because one of his opponents noticed a sudden improvement.
I don't know why Mr Blobby was banned but merely suggested that at 1300 he could not be a very effective engine user and that he had made adequate admissions of cheating in the forums to justify a ban without needing to demonstrate engine use.
If you say he was definately banned for engine use then fine I can accept that but his sudden improvement from 800 to 1300 would justify investigation according to criteria I previously set out in any event.
I don't wish to detract in any way from No1s efforts to rid the site of engine abusers and support him wholeheartedly on this. I only wish that we could focus on the rather to obvious cheats that now seem to be rising rapidly up the player table rather that get overly obsessed with 1300-1500 cheats.
Maybe I was a little OTT yesterday. I had a long hard day with some new clients in London and was booked into a dreadful Travelodge with dire food which wasn't conducive to having a good frame of mind. I will be eating somewhere better tonight I hope.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou convieniently ignore the word "maybe".
The full relevant quote was "Many of the 3(b) players have been banned for getting assistance other than engine assistance, [b]maybe even most". You conveniently left out the part in bold.
The statement is incorrect anyway; I can't recall a single player banned for "getting assistance other than engine assistance", never mind "many".[/b]
I am not stating this as a fact just as a possibility but I cannot prove things 1 way or the other as the banned list has gone.
but as an example User 285560 was not using an engine.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireTrue, but he was not "getting assistance" from anybody else either. He was creating fake accounts to play to pad his rating. I already discussed these idiots in this thread; they are REALLY easy to detect.
You convieniently ignore the word "maybe".
I am not stating this as a fact just as a possibility but I cannot prove things 1 way or the other as the banned list has gone.
but as an example User 285560 was not using an engine.
09 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't disagree with you at all on what he was doing.
True, but he was not "getting assistance" from anybody else either. He was creating fake accounts to play to pad his rating. I already discussed these idiots in this thread; they are REALLY easy to detect.
I am merely counting people like him who are banned for cheating as being in the non engine user category and, of course you are right, such idiots are really easy to catch.
I don't know what percentage of banned cheats fall into this category. Maybe it is not most but I don't really know and that word maybe was critical in my original post.
I think we agree on one fundamental important point, namely that there are too many cheaters at present on this site and something needs to happen PDQ, but I still stick by my original comments which were intended to be a defence of this site more than anything else, namely that, I think that, the problem here is no where near as bad as on some other sites. Of course I cannot prove that as I have no idea how many cheats are here let alone on other sites but it is simply a gut feeling from my experiences here and elsewhere.
Maybe, and I concede this point, I am too inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and perhaps I am wrong and 50% of players here really are cheating as some are suggesting.