01 Dec 04
Originally posted by gambit3Whilst the idea is good I agree it could turn into a bit of a witch hunt.
That thread is starting to look like it has the potential of a "witch hunt". The only thing worse than cheating and getting caught is being falsely accused and punished.
Also what happens if someone takes a dislike to another person and makes an accusation that proves to be false? Do you punish the accuser?
What happens when a member who is falsely accused decides to take the matter further legally? OK it may never happen, it's unlikely to happen but it could one day!
At the end of the day the only people who should have the ability and power to review accusations are RHP themselves. The TOS dictate what can and cannot happen.
If people are cheating then they should be removed from the site, simple as that.
01 Dec 04
The rules have not been decided yet, but here is what I envision.
There will be games tested against engines, these will be both games of members at RHP, as well as games from masters and any old game in the world. Findings will show interesting things like even Gary Kasparov matches a chess engine about 30 or 40 percent of time (just a guess) These will be control games.
Next you find a user at RHP who's games match much more often. Sometimes perhaps 100 percent of the time. These are the people who need to worry.
So, if you don't use an engine, you don't need to worry about someone saying you do.
This is just speculation, as the idea is still being worked on.
P-
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitI put a game in my program one time. It agreed with all of the moves that the winning GM did. I did not put the game in and ask it for advice so I do not know if the program would have made the moves that the player did. The game I put in the program is Reti's win over Capablanca. I tried to analyze Marshall's "Gold Coin Game". So far my computer has three crashes for my efforts. Personally I do not see a program problem. I guess I am not playing the cheaters. I would tell you one of the hardest to detect ways of using a program, but I might be giving some player some ideas.
The rules have not been decided yet, but here is what I envision.
There will be games tested against engines, these will be both games of members at RHP, as well as games from masters and any old game in the world. Findings will show interesting things like even Gary Kasparov matches a chess engine about 30 or 40 percent of time (just a guess) These w ...[text shortened]... someone saying you do.
This is just speculation, as the idea is still being worked on.
P-
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by gambit3If you are talking about CM '100 percent agree' this is not how it is done.
I put a game in my program one time. It agreed with all of the moves that the winning GM did. I did not put the game in and ask it for advice so I do not know if the program would have made the moves that the player did. The game I put in the program is Reti's win over Capablanca. I tried to analyze Marshall's "Gold Coin Game". So far my computer has thr ...[text shortened]... of the hardest to detect ways of using a program, but I might be giving some player some ideas.
The game is broken up move for move (from what I understand) and each move is tested. That is much different than letting CM or another program analize the whole game and get a percentage of agreement. I've gotten 95 percent agree using CM9k, it was the best I ever did... and not even sure I won it.
There are plenty of ways to cheat, and the team will know the good ones. If they don't, perhaps you should consider joining to share your info!?
P-
02 Dec 04
For instance when analysing a game with Fritz there is a threshold. This means that if Fritz find a move that is more than that amount (measured in hundreths of pawns) better than the move you made it will give it as a variation. However if you were to set that to zero then any time you made a move that Fritz thought wasn't the move it would make it would show it. This is what is meant by agreement. Not that Fritz thinks your move isn't a blunder but that it's the move it would make.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitI have never analyzed one of my games. I have no idea what one of my games would score. When I lose I have no problem knowing what went wrong. The few times I have put a game in my program I gave it a third of a day to analyze it. Seems to me that it will be a time consuming thing the check a single game.
If you are talking about CM '100 percent agree' this is not how it is done.
The game is broken up move for move (from what I understand) and each move is tested. That is much different than letting CM or another program analize the whole game and get a percentage of agreement. I've gotten 95 percent agree using CM9k, it was the best I ever did... ...[text shortened]... e good ones. If they don't, perhaps you should consider joining to share your info!?
P-
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitJust a small worry here: When I was accused of cheating for the first time a few weeks ago, my opponent claimed that he ran our game through some engine and every move I made was the one that the engine would have made and therefore I had to be cheating! I have far too many games to be cheating for one and for two anyone that has played me can attest that I make far too many mistakes! So, my problem is: What if you happen to be making the best possible moves on your own?
The rules have not been decided yet, but here is what I envision.
There will be games tested against engines, these will be both games of members at RHP, as well as games from masters and any old game in the world. Findings will show interesting things like even Gary Kasparov matches a chess engine about 30 or 40 percent of time (just a guess) These w ...[text shortened]... someone saying you do.
This is just speculation, as the idea is still being worked on.
P-
~ Cheshire Cat đŸ˜€
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by Cheshire CatCat,
Just a small worry here: When I was accused of cheating for the first time a few weeks ago, my opponent claimed that he ran our game through some engine and every move I made was the one that the engine would have made and therefore I had to be cheating! I have far too many games to be cheating for one and for two anyone that has played me can attest ...[text shortened]... m is: What if you happen to be making the best possible moves on your own?
~ Cheshire Cat đŸ˜€
He probably just said he did that and these were the results. He never posted any results as he had none to post, so ignore the punk
Andrew
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by ReaperSetting up double user names to play against yourself
What are the things that would be considered cheating?
Using an engine to get your next move.
Getting advice from other users to make your moves (hard to prove, but that is also cheating)
Keeping an extra Queen in your pocker (joke)
P-
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitAre we including using books for openings? And how do you prove this?
Setting up double user names to play against yourself
Using an engine to get your next move.
Getting advice from other users to make your moves (hard to prove, but that is also cheating)
Keeping an extra Queen in your pocker (joke)
P-