03 Dec 04
Since I argued a lot with LatexB because he blindly trust Arrakis' word on JW,I invite you,Arrakis,to explain your reasons why you think that Jameswoodley is not an engine user and to post the games you analized to say it.
I'm really curious,as all JW's games analized so far showed a 95-100% match with engine moves.
03 Dec 04
Originally posted by RavelloIt all depends on which engine you use for analysis.
Since I argued a lot with LatexB because he blindly trust Arrakis' word on JW,I invite you,Arrakis,to explain your reasons why you think that Jameswoodley is not an engine user and to post the games you analized to say it.
I'm really curious,as all JW's games analized so far showed a 95-100% match with engine moves.
03 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderprobably the best practice would be to wait until the list of candidates is closed (Russ? How long will that be?) and then make a separate thread for postings particularly related to the merit of candidates. Better than clogging this thread, and make sure all is easy to find, non? Then close that thread right before the vote. Then everyone who wanted to vote could read that thread first.
Then there's nothing wrong with the community having this information, is there?
03 Dec 04
Probably it would be wise to introduce some eligibility restrictions for candidates (similar to minimum age & place of birth election restrictions in some countries): like minimum rating, RHP registration date (and, probably, # of games played), subscription type.
03 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWhilst they may be valid points, this is meant to be a thread for volunteers. There's any number of other threads with discussion of the topics, and I'm sure that the list <> the final group. Arguments belong elsewhere.
This may start a fight but ................ As Arrakis is team captain of the Fun Clan in the 3 day league, Division 2 and has on his team blatant and obvious cheater James Woodley who, I assume, would be the first person investigated by this group, his inclusion on the Cheat Police would be a complete conflict of interest. I also have reason ...[text shortened]... because I received it via PM. Therefore, I think Arrakis should be disqualified from the group.
03 Dec 04
Originally posted by ExyFirst, at least preliminary trials indicate that some of the best
Having seen the ongoing rows over Forum Moderation that only started to ease once some sort of automated process was put in place, my fear is that these Chess Mods would be the cause of much controversy and argument and it would be almost impossible to guarantee thier impartiality.
players on this site do not concord with engines beyond 50%. Even
that high level of concordance usually is the direct result of 4-6 ply
move sequences which have explicit goals/consequences/exchanges,
&c. Even at high levels, we should not expect a 90% concordance,
even in short games (88% concordance in a 25 move game would
be 22 out of 25 moves identical). It would be exceedingly unlikely.
Second, any accusations of cheating shouldn't be based on a single
game, but on a sequence of games; obviously, we want to err on the
side of the individual, not the accuser.
Third, discovering someone's use of an engine is an objective finding.
It's not like discussing what is 'offensive' or not. There is no reason
for any elaborate discussion of a case. If a person has repeated high
concordance with an engine, s/he must be cheating, period: Goodbye
account.
Fourth, to avoid confusing the public, all accusations ought to be made
in private. This will require a knowledge of who the cheat police -- or
at least few contact people -- are. There should be a link at the
bottom of every game page as well as on the send feedback page.
This link should go to a page not unlike the 'Alert Post' page, which
allows you to type in the game number and salient details.
Lastly, short of informing the community that a cheater has been
unmasked and banned from the site, there should be no public
discussion about cases. As the 'Cheat Police' aren't exercising
'subjective' judgment -- they are crunching numbers and reacting to
it -- they should only report to Russ who will weigh the evidence
and dismiss the member.
Nemesio
04 Dec 04
Originally posted by chess kid1I will tell you right now The Chessmaster9000 had more bugs than an alley cat, I would wait about a month or so and read the ubisoft forums first, before you buy (I think me and phlabibit had a bet on if chessmaster was going to graduate to level 10).
i am gonna get a chessmaster so yes i would own an engine soon.
I have been thinking about finding new software for game analysis and graphical play, other than chessmaster.
For what it's worth,
Mike
04 Dec 04
Originally posted by rapalla7It made it... and I'll be getting that and Fritz.
I will tell you right now The Chessmaster9000 had more bugs than an alley cat, I would wait about a month or so and read the ubisoft forums first, before you buy (I think me and phlabibit had a bet on if chessmaster was going to graduate to level 10).
I have been thinking about finding new software for game analysis and graphical play, other than chessmaster.
For what it's worth,
Mike
I am a sucker for punishment.
P-
04 Dec 04
Originally posted by GatecrasherStarrman
Hmm Subs vs cheat? Subs vs cheat? To me it is obvious. The long tem benefits of not having cheats far outweighs the subs they pay.
If RHP became a well policed site, it would encourage many more honest players onto the site.
Becoming a member or subscriber to RHP implies that you will undertake to follow the rules of the site. And the rules stat ...[text shortened]... s kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7
Gatecrasher
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7
Gatecrasher
Cheshire Cat
I obviously have enough free time for this kind of thing. 🙂
~ Cheshire Cat 😀
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
04 Dec 04
well, i'm up for it. have access to pretty much every chess program as my dad is a pretty notable buster on ICC (falcon). when i told him about the site the first thing he asked about was whether there was a computer detection group or anything. im sure he would be more than happy to help me and the site get rid of, or at least mark those that do use computers.
i'll leave my ideas and opinions about the matter out of this thread, and if i am chosen to be a moderator i'll discuss them there.
btw, i do believe that moderators should not only be competent in the engine analysis area, but also shoudl have a strong record of otb chess as this ensures that they do have extensive chess knowledge, somethign that is very important to the matter.