tell me why I should subscribe here

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
For a start if someone is graded 1300 - 1600 and really is cheating they clearly are not doing it very well so whilst what they are doing is wrong is it really of massive concern,

that is nonsense, you are making too many stoopid assumptions here. 😛

Originally posted by Rizhanin
I think using engine even 1 time during the game can often have tremendous effect on the result. Of course it wont help a 1000 rated player beat a 2000 rated player. But when the game is played by similar class players the one to safely know a couple of best moves in a sharp headbreaking position while the other needs to use his own brains and risk to lose ...[text shortened]... And what I definitely did not mean was the easiness of catching cheaters. Quite the opposite.

A simple fact of life that many here apparently are unable to properly fathom/comprehend.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You'd be wrong as usual. Your arrogance that your two month, absence filled stint as a Game Mod gives you superior knowledge of cheat detection than people who have been doing it (successfully) for years is laughable.

well said marauder. As the witless rebuttals, deformed ad hoc conclusions, and soothsayer logic clearly speaks for itself.

Originally posted by diskamyl
as a recent 1700 (below 1800), I strongly disagree with this post. I think I'm pretty capable of understanding what positions are critical and determine which position to be tactically very suspicious, and if I were to consult an engine, say 3 moves per game, I believe my rating would be at least 50 points higher.

thank you rocketscienceman, you made my day.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're attacking a Strawman. No one is saying "everybody is cheating". I am saying that there are many blatant cheats operating on the site. People who keep track of such things could probably name a couple dozen off the top of their heads. And analysis of their games would and does show this beyond any serious doubt. If the Game Mods don't agree with th ous at best esp. when your experience in these matters is so limited (as you concede).

I'm sick of bickering, but I'll leave with one last point. The Game Mod's method of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is cheating is quite clever, and in my mind the only way to go about the situation. I don't think I should say what it is (I think Gate may have already have, but I can't really remember), but I would still go out on a limb and say what we did was more rigorous and effective than what you do, although I don't know what you do. I'd be interested to discuss it with you through PM's if you so wish. It's easier for you to come up with what you think is reasonable beyond doubt evidence then send it to the site admins or the mod team for reviewing than it is for us or Russ to confirm it and do something about it. We can't be wrong, you can. Either way, I really hope you're a part of the new team, maybe I'll see you there (to your dismay).

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
I'm sick of bickering, but I'll leave with one last point. The Game Mod's method of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is cheating is quite clever, and in my mind the only way to go about the situation. I don't think I should say what it is (I think Gate may have already have, but I can't really remember), but I would still go out on a limb and sa ...[text shortened]... eally hope you're a part of the new team, maybe I'll see you there (to your dismay).

whole lotta' nothing there. And your point that there is but only one way to go about exposing and detecting chess cheats is again quite laughable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
DF: In fact there has been suspicions that at least 1 of the top 10 players does exactly this but these are mere suspicions for there is no proof.

Would that a player used to state that he blunder checked in his profile be considered "some" proof?

A "centaur" is harder to spot than a James Woodley but there remain tell tale signs.

If he still blunder checked, yes! but my understanding is the individual who used to say this in his profile has alledgedly ceased this activity since it was made against the TOS. Apparently when he did thid it was not against the TOS.

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
I'm sick of bickering, but I'll leave with one last point. The Game Mod's method of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone is cheating is quite clever, and in my mind the only way to go about the situation. I don't think I should say what it is (I think Gate may have already have, but I can't really remember), but I would still go out on a limb and sa ...[text shortened]... eally hope you're a part of the new team, maybe I'll see you there (to your dismay).

As stated in another thread, I don't believe "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", a concept used in the criminal law, is appropriate for this type of process. I'd go with what is generally used in administrative fact finding processes "clear and convincing evidence" based on the totality of that evidence. No one is being put in jail or executed for being a cheat on RHP, so to raise the bar to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is unwarranted and unnecessarily rigid. It will insure that many cheaters who's guilt is supported by the evidence will continue to prosper. And using the mathematical formula Gate apparently does as the sole determinant of guilt is flawed in so many ways I can't begin to count them, no matter how "clever" you and he believe it is.

I "do" what the Game Mods told me to "do" as regards the submission of evidence even though I think the type of game analysis they want is not as good or time efficient as a simple blundercheck with the setting at 0. Of course, both merely present raw data which has to be analyzed by a human being, not a mathematical formula. And the surrounding circumstances have to be looked at for the usual tell tale signs of engine use: rapid rating increases, many simultaneous games with no consequential errors, etc. etc. etc. This is the type of analysis I do and I sincerely doubt that anything the Game Mods do is better. Of course, I am only one person with limited time and resources compared to the Game Mods, but still my record speaks for itself.

That there are numerous blatant cheaters on the site is beyond question as is the Game Mods' and Site Admins' failure to effectively deal with the problem over at least the last six months. Pretending it is a "minor" problem that only effects a tiny proportion of users is the type of sticking yer head in the sand response that it not needed or justified in a Game Mod.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
If he still blunder checked, yes! but my understanding is the individual who used to say this in his profile has alledgedly ceased this activity since it was made against the TOS. Apparently when he did thid it was not against the TOS.

That's still quite a bit more than "mere suspicion" as your first post stated. Obviously I am restrained by Site Policy from stating anything further.

Originally posted by diskamyl
as a recent 1700 (below 1800), I strongly disagree with this post. I think I'm pretty capable of understanding what positions are critical and determine which position to be tactically very suspicious, and if I were to consult an engine, say 3 moves per game, I believe my rating would be at least 50 points higher.

I don't disagree with you that you will notice some positions but I am afraid I repeatedly found that engines can spot nuances I didn't even know were there and what I am trying to say is that it is not as easy as you think for someone to identify the key points and only load up an engine for those moves. So what I am trying to say is I don't think if someone uses an engine to check they will only do it for a couple of moves but they will do it for most moves. It is then a small step to use it to check all moves and before long you start choosing the best move. Its a slippery slope that you slide down because you find checking 1 or 2 moves doesn't help enough.

I don't disagree with you that maybe if you check 3 key positions in every game you may very well add 50 points to your rating and whilst I am not saying this is acceptable I am saying that this will not impact dramatically on the enjoyment of 99% of other players here.

It is the strong centaur that uses for every move that you need to worry most about and he will be rated 2200+.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I don't disagree with you... I don't disagree with you that maybe if you check 3 key positions in every game you may very well add 50 points to your rating and whilst I am not saying this is acceptable I am saying that this will not impact dramatically on the enjoyment of 99% of other players here.

And the password is : blundercheck.

😉

Originally posted by NorrisB
I dont see why I should. I can get every feature here and more at chesshere.com, I dont think Id wanna play more than 6 games anyway, I have no desire to play in a siege or in a tournament forced to play some engine user for a worthless title. Or join some clan that wants me to play 50 games to bring it up to the top of the worthless clan standings.

...[text shortened]... ve games. The way I see it subs play far too many games and they're atleast 100 pts overrated.

I think joining a variety of chess sites is the best thing to do.Some sites have better features than the others,while some have a different breed of players including stiffer competition.Some sites have better graphics,better blitz ect.,but each site has atleast something the other site does not.Actually I consider GameKnot the "best" for overall long game play with a host of features that this site does not have,especially if you become a gold member there.As` to blitz however,both gameknot and this site will never compare to sites like ICC and Instantchess.Instanchess and ICC both have many more GM's and IM's who not only are members,but you can "watch"their play and or learn from them directly.You won't find that on this site.
Yet,I do like this site,but i would never "pay" to any upgrade on this site because the features will never equal the pure "quality" of the above mentioned sites or even "chess is here" or chessmaniac.yet...to each his own!

Originally posted by eldragonfly
It is possible that the actual number of people who play an honest game here is rather small, ridding the site of obvious cheats might just be a relentless Sisyphean task.

To that end i propose fischer random chess, either 8 x 8 or 9 x 9 -with an extra knight- rated games as one way to resolve this problem.

a cheat can reset a board to play random fischer chess and there are various custom programs out there atleast 8x8 that can still use software to cheat with using extra pieces ect.No,the answer is something very few players if any on this site(except me!)know how to catch a cheat for real!ICC has the answer.They employ a special overlay sophisticated chess software that runs a sort of "kibitzer" in parallel with a suspected cheaters moves.I've been told they run several programs at one time like shredder,rybka,fritz for example and compare the programs moves to the suspected cheaters moves.
If there is a large number of moves and games(by the suspected cheater) that compare to shredders moves for example,then the player is given notice that he can only continue to play on ICC if a computer user "symbol"is placed by his/her name.If the cheater disagrees,he/she is then banned from the site!This program is probably very expensive and I doubt that they would ever employ such methods on this site.ICC has mostly a vast nimber of paying members and the membership is quite expensive,so ICC can afford such luxuries.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Actually I am seriously considering subscribing but am reluctant
to give credit card details (Chess player's paranoia).

So was wondering why do I have to pay two years subs by cheque.

It's about £30 yes?

RHP is a secure site with secure payment mechanisms. Which is less risky than using your credit card at a restaurant. Stop being paranoid!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Actually I am seriously considering subscribing but am reluctant
to give credit card details (Chess player's paranoia).

So was wondering why do I have to pay two years subs by cheque.

It's about £30 yes?

Paying by credit card - like many risky things in life - is a lot easier after the first time.