- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 655696
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is.
Cheating is a disgrace, not catching people doing it.
However, "simple acceptance" that someone cheated is too. I want to see something that is conclusive - the exact words escape me, but "we have other tools" isn't a constructive demonstration that someone cheated.
Originally posted by BowmannFor the first time, I've read the ToS. Not entirely, and I didn't see anything about the PMs, but there sure are some to me) highly amusing sections. Since I'm assuming that most people here haven't actually read it, here are some:
Is it?
You agree to not use the Service to:
"Stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
Collect or store personal data about other users.
my fave: A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF USERS MAY EXPERIENCE EPILEPTIC SEIZURES WHEN EXPOSED TO CERTAIN LIGHT PATTERNS OR BACKGROUNDS ON A COMPUTER SCREEN OR WHILE USING THE SERVICE. CERTAIN CONDITIONS MAY INDUCE PREVIOUSLY UNDETECTED EPILEPTIC SYMPTOMS EVEN IN USERS WHO HAVE NO HISTORY OF PRIOR SEIZURES OR EPILEPSY. IF YOU, OR ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY, HAVE AN EPILEPTIC CONDITION, CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE. IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE USE OF THE SERVICE AND CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SYMPTOMS WHILE USING THE SERVICE -- DIZZINESS, ALTERED VISION, EYE OR MUSCLE TWITCHES, LOSS OF AWARENESS, DISORIENTATION, ANY INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENT, OR CONVULSIONS.
*twitch twitch*
Originally posted by angie88I wonder if you can get a refund if you suffer from that problem 😉
For the first time, I've read the ToS. Not entirely, and I didn't see anything about the PMs, but there sure are some to me) highly amusing sections. Since I'm assuming that most people here haven't actually read it, here are some:
You agree to not use the Service to:
"Stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
Collect or store personal data about ot ...[text shortened]... LOSS OF AWARENESS, DISORIENTATION, ANY INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENT, OR CONVULSIONS.
*twitch twitch*
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2004There is sooooooooooooo much incorrect info here, I hardly know where to start.
That was 13 years ago. As Ravello pointed out in another thread he is still playing competative tournament chess. I wonder what his rating is now? All I am saying is that many of IM's games were against players who he could kick a$$ against without an engine. Your point about him moving at too fast a pace with such a high rating is completely rediculous ...[text shortened]... e to analyse than GMs and therefore would have had a higher match up to an engine than they did.
1) Rav showed he's playing in ONE correspondence tournament run by the Italian Chess Federation. I wonder what his rating is now, too, but I can't find one. He was rated 1932 in 1993 by the ICCF. That's all we know and that, my friend, DOES NOT indicate Grandmaster strength as you assume.
2) You obviously don't know much about chess if you think that even strong player can look at complicated position and always come up with winning lines in a "minute or two". IM played the top members of this site many times including a player who just happened to beat Gary Kasparov (in a simul, but still). If you think some 1900 rated correspondence players could whip off 67 moves per day against stiff competition without EVER, EVER making a grave error, you are delusional.
3) 1700 players on this site are still reasonably good; it's not like playing people who go for fool's mate or play the Damiano. And it's also a correspondence site where THEY have more time to study their moves plus most would put more effort into their games with IM. The idea that he (or anybody) could be such a Chess God that he would merely have to glance at the board and come up with perfect, Junior-like moves 100% of the time is absurd.
Anything else??
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 655696
Originally posted by no1marauderA number of people stating that a player has a 'high matchup' with an engine is extremely difficult to accept. I have seen some of your analysis of games, and I don't doubt that it is possible to show high %age matches between engines and humans. What concerns me is that it will be possible to manipulate (deliberately or otherwise) those figures according to choice of hardware, the engine, whether first, second or third choices are considered a match etc.
What would you consider "conclusive"??
I'm happy to accept that the banned players show high match-ups. I expect that your match-up figures are far higher than my own (proving precisely nothing) - but if the game mods have other evidence then it should be presented. If not in exact detail, but a statement that makes it clear and gives enough fact to be plausible.
It is perfectly possible for someone crap like myself to get quite suprising results with sufficient patience and careful use of reference material - which would no doubt generate a higher engine match.
Originally posted by pineapple42You desire more than a statement that he matches up almost 100% to a commercially available engine??
A number of people stating that a player has a 'high matchup' with an engine is extremely difficult to accept. I have seen some of your analysis of games, and I don't doubt that it is possible to show high %age matches between engines and humans. What concerns me is that it will be possible to manipulate (deliberately or otherwise) those figures accor ...[text shortened]... nce and careful use of reference material - which would no doubt generate a higher engine match.