I doubt that I qualify as a "respected player" but I will put my name on the list anyhow, if only because I have a decent mind for investigating things, and am not afraid to speak up if I think someone is being hard done by.
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Im probably not good enouph a player to spot a computer over a really strong player but i am able to run computer analysis (using chessmaster 9000) to prove whether a computer would choose the moves that a suspect has made. If that's what your looking for i'll happily spare my time to help keep RHP as cheat free as possible.
Unfortunately that won't really help catch cheats who use programs once they get in trouble but it's better than nothing.
I have good computer programs such as chessmaster 10K for good analysis. This is a good list, we are mixing good players with less experienced players. All reputable.
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
Have two independent groups:
First group: - 'the players'
Strong players (2000+) who have the insight and experience to spot suspicious moves just by playing through the games.
Second group: - 'the grunts'
The weaker players could help with the mundane work (no offence - I include myself in this group) by feeding selected games into several engines and noting similarities. Once a large enough set of data is obtain, some sort of significance test could then be applied. My statistics is very rusty, but perhaps a there is a statistician on the site, who could suggest a suitable test.
Finally the two groups could then compare results.
JD
I think at least a few of the people selected would have to have a large range of engines. It wouldnt be much of a discussion if there was only one person with Hiarcs, Doctor etc Although engines tend to cross over a bit anyhow but some are very distinct, Nimzo for example.
While I think this is a bad idea as proven on other sites which wrongly accuse players. I would like to get involved in it. Though this may turn out very bad it's better than doing nothing. Te main problem is players are biased no matter what they say for their own clans or friends on he site. Luckily for me I don't really have friends here and I'm not overly obssessed with my clans as some are so here goes my hat flying into the ring.
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
I almost forgot. Comparing players to programs will not always prove anything one of the first people who should be dealt with are people who are like 1100-1200 during their membership here and then one day jump to 1700+ Besides the computers, there is also common sense. And players dont need to be high rated good players to have that common sense. Alot of the higher players (not all) are people who shouldnt be in this police group as some don't have common sense, are obssessive about their clans and can act like children sometimes. I would say before finalizing a group please please figure out some way to do a legit age check of the people you choose I really wonder sometimes the real age of some of the people here.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21Sometimes mental age does not correspond with the actual age !!!! I have meant a few 2 years olds walking around in 18 year old bodies or older !!!
I would say before finalizing a group please please figure out some way to do a legit age check of the people you choose I really wonder sometimes the real age of some of the people here.
-trekkie
A great idea, Russ.
Thanks to those who have volunteered. Unfortunately I don't have any engines, nor would I be able to detect engine use.
I think everyone on the list can play a part. My only concern would be Trackhead21, who has, in the past, been accused of computer use. Not that I'm saying he is guilty, I really don't know, but I think you need an unsullied reputation to be on the list.
Glad to see Grey eyes on the list. He's has done tons of good work on this in the past.
But cheating is not only limited to engine use, there is also rating manupulation with the creation of multiple accounts. In duel tournaments, there are "arranged" results so that both players go forward. And there is probably other cheating that we haven't even defined yet. So perhaps there is room for this "committee" to widen its scope.
A little ramble to show just how difficult this is likely to be. Again, top show all who have signed up for possible inclusion.
Determine a policy of how accusations are submitted:
Where this accusation is made (not a public forum for a start!)
Who can instigate accusations? Any RHP member or what?
What information is required to create a valid accusation? For example the evidence suggesting the use of multiple accounts is not the same as that suggesting the use of a chess engine(s).
Who will oversee the accusation ‘till such time as it becomes sufficiently well defined to be analysed by the larger group?
Will a database of incomplete accusations be retained (such that where a single accuser does not have sufficient info to hand, a number of complaints over a period of time may supply such data). If so, for how long? And if so, what measures are taken to avoid information in this database leaking out, most likely during the aforementioned ‘overseeing’ process which may involve some direct correspondence between an RHP member and those that have access to the accusations database).
Determine methods of analysing player(s) game history to detect patterns likely indicating cheating, and determining metrics to express this to the non-expert members: for example a 98% move agreement with a database for a 2000+ player may (or may not: I have no idea) be reasonable. Also consider that as databases are permitted, even sub-800 players could have 100% agreement within the “start-game” period. I think: not sure on that as I’ve no idea how to use them either. And what constitutes the starting-game anyway… Here we also have to determine means for a player’s ‘defence’ to be heard if necessary (no point in bugging them without warrant): how is that dealt with in a manner that does not imply guilt, does not necessarily reveal the identity(ies) of the accusers, allows for a full explanation without preconceptions. For example: the person(s) talking to the accuser(s) may be different to that talking to the accused. Thus cross-contamination of information is avoided.
From the evaluation of game history, determine what level of ‘proof’ will be required.
I strongly suspect this will be linked to the next bit, so let’s just merge them now: And finally, what sanctions to take? The sanctions will almost certainly be both proof-level and prevalence dependant. Likely outcomes may be one or more of the following:
Total ban; temporary ban; suspension of registered-user privileges; public denouncement / register (I’d be against it; but it should be considered); deduction of points; placement on a cheat-police private ‘register of suspects’ for a time (for future re-evaluation of cheating risk) and hopefully a common use of “exoneration”.
Also consider punishments for baseless accusations made in the public forums. Not quite the same thing but related, as it requires the same analysis skills.
Originally posted by ToeToe, you are hereby nominated a member of the committee. 🙂
A little ramble to show just how difficult this is likely to be. Again, top show all who have signed up for possible inclusion.
Determine a policy of how accusations are submitted:
Where this accusation is made (not a public forum for a start!)
Who can instigate accusations? Any RHP member or what?
What information is required to create a valid accusation ...[text shortened]... public forums. Not quite the same thing but related, as it requires the same analysis skills.
All in favour, raise their hands...