- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by RavelloI agree. The volunteers should be strong players who should preferably have experience of OTB chess and a good knowledge of chess programs such as Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chessmaster.
Well,I respect all of you guys for voluntering,but I guess that it would be better to have some very high-rated players to do this job,which is very delicate and can involve a level play of 2000+ (not all cheats are 1500-1600).
However it's good that there are already five volunteers right now,it means that people cares about this problem.
Therefore I will add my name to the list:-
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Originally posted by RavelloThat's not always possible, the higher rated guys want to concentrate more on their games than worry about cheaters.
Well,I respect all of you guys for voluntering,but I guess that it would be better to have some very high-rated players to do this job,which is very delicate and can involve a level play of 2000+ (not all cheats are 1500-1600).
However it's good that there are already five volunteers right now,it means that people cares about this problem.
It would be better definately...
Alot of the times the cheaters just play multiple accounts against each other (although that is not easy anymore, but it can still happen) then you don't need high rated players to see it and do something about it.
Originally posted by David TebbWow, this post is about as exciting as when the Sox got Schilling!
I agree. The volunteers should be strong players who should preferably have experience of OTB chess and a good knowledge of chess programs such as Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chessmaster.
Therefore I will add my name to the list:-
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
P-
Originally posted by CrowleyYes,but here we are talking about players using chess engines to do their moves,which is far more difficult to detect.
That's not always possible, the higher rated guys want to concentrate more on their games than worry about cheaters.
It would be better definately...
Alot of the times the cheaters just play multiple accounts against each other (although that is not easy anymore, but it can still happen) then you don't need high rated players to see it and do something about it.
I agree on the fact that even a guy rated 800 could spot 30 games with 0 moves resignations played against a dummy account,but we want to prevent the more sophisticated forms of cheating like the ones questioned in these days.
Regarding the ratings question: I think a broad mix of ratings would be helpful, for the following reasons:
1. Representativeness/credibility: it would be good for people with lower ratings to feel they have representation in this community-wide problem.
2. Chess skill isn't the only, or the most important, skill that is implicated by this task. Other skills that are equally important would seem to be:
a) Commitment and time availability;
b) Individual credibility with the community;
c) Absence of bias;
d) General reasoning/analytic ability, including evaluating and weighing evidence and credibility;
e) Advocacy ability for the position one arrives at;
f) Possession of/familiarity with various software;
g) Special skills in investigation/witness questioning; and
h) Policy analysis ability.
I note, for example, that Russ mentioned that the first task would be to determine the sanction for cheating. That task has a lot more to do with ability to balance concepts of justice and fairness with community and site interests than with chess-playing skill.
The only task where high-skilled players would have a significant advantage would be in simple analysis of move choices and determination as to whether those choices are characteristic of computer-assisted play. In that task, it is both appropriate and predictable that high-skilled players' opinions would be given greater weight in discussions and eventual decisions. David Tebb's opinion that someone's play is consistent with their demonstrated skill level and inconsistent with a computer is probably worth three opinions to the contrary from lesser players, and should be treated as such. That doesn't mean the lesser players should be excluded -- just that the greater players definitely should be included as well.
Other types of evidence -- ie. rating patterns, incriminating statements, many moves that exactly match those of a popular engine -- would be evaluated just as well by a 1000 player as a 2000 player.
Originally posted by gumbieWell,I like to think that this idea was brought up in the thread ''Ideas for dealing with engines'' which was started to find a suitable solution to the problem.http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16313
Very good idea Russ.
Solution finally has been find!
I am not playing much recently, but I am willing to devote some time and effort to this. I am concerned for both sides of the problem, especially giving the fact that this is a correspondence-only site.
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2