Originally posted by BridgePlayerNever had a previous account but you refer to trackhead as crackhead? 😕
Hey, question, why did ironman get taken down to a 500 rating when all the other banned players I see still have whatever rating they had? I see crackhead is still 2100 and meman is 2300, Jean Hebert is in the 1800's
Originally posted by XanthosNZlol, first time I saw it thats what I thought it said haha. Someone asked if i was trackhead after my first post on the site. When I refered back to it I took a short glance at the name and asked who crackhead was. Not trying to insult him or her, just thought it was funny how the name looks when you look at it quickly, although i'm sure no one minds if it is an insult since just another person kicked off for cheating.
Never had a previous account but you refer to trackhead as crackhead? 😕
Originally posted by asromacalciowell, I haven't evidence.
I agree with XNZ, if you are going to make a statement like that [the game mod system is a joke] there has to be some evidence offered to support it. At least something.
But imho the mod system is flawed.
- No proves of cheating being made public.
- No one (bootted) player is allowed to present a discharge in public,
- The mods game team is way too small to cope with their task.
- They (I think) behave on the basis of accusations.
- False accusations were never being put publicly.
- They have to punish this last item. This eats up a lot of of precious time analyzing false alarms.
And I didn't see it up to now.
Putting a player to public blame deserves a complaint to IFCC.
Whatever the TOS says.
- J
Originally posted by XanthosNZAgreed and presumably he had to disclose a Credit Card.
He could always reveal himself to the site admin privately. Russ can keep a secret.
So all a (proposed) banned player needs is a message from Russ stating the evidence and all he needs to do is produce evidence that his OTB rating supports his online performance, eg by refernece to FIDEs rating list, BCF ratings or other reliable source.
Most reputable players can do this.
No proves of cheating being made public.
I agree this would be nice but in actuality would just result in smarter che@ters.
No one (bootted) player is allowed to present a discharge in public,
What purpose would this serve? What evidence can a banned player present that contradicts game after game of engine play?
The mods game team is way too small to cope with their task.
I agree but it doesn't make the team a joke.
They (I think) behave on the basis of accusations.
What do you expect them to do check every player? Or just spend their entire day looking for potential che@ts themselves? It's the same as the police can only investigate crime that is reported.
False accusations were never being put publicly.
They have to punish this last item. This eats up a lot of of precious time analyzing false alarms.
This would be a horrible mistake. Without analysis it is impossible to be sure that a player is a che@ter. Pursuing a policy of punishing accusations that don't pan out would cause the source of accusations (many of which turn out to be correct) to dry up. If people are being reported for no reason the Game Mods can tell, it'd be pretty obvious.
Putting a player to public blame deserves a complaint to IFCC.
Whatever the TOS says.
What does the Internet Fraud Complaint Centre have to do with banning players for che@ting? For one they have no jurisdiction outside of the US. And for another it would surely be more appropriate to report players who assume known chess identities (Jean Hebert, tommybear etc.) rather than RHP?
So tell me what (US) laws is RHP breaking by banning players who have been found to be che@ting?
And as a further question to you, what is your solution? Let the che@ters be?
PS. Sort your spelling and grammar out it's appalling.
EDIT: Sorry for the che@t spelling, RoboMod was triggered thanks to the density of that word in my post.
Originally posted by XanthosNZJust want to say I agree. Would say more but I have a horrible toothache and think im done with chess and the forums for the day. Hope you arent mad at me anymore 🙂
[b]No proves of cheating being made public.
I agree this would be nice but in actuality would just result in smarter che@ters.
No one (bootted) player is allowed to present a discharge in public,
What purpose would this serve? What evidence can a banned player present that contradicts game after game of engine play?
The mods game team ...[text shortened]... or the che@t spelling, RoboMod was triggered thanks to the density of that word in my post.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by Dragon FireIronman31 is Italian. I know his real name (I'm not going to publish it here) and can tell you that he is definitely not an International Master or Grandmaster. In fact, there's no record of him ever having a FIDE rating.
As regards Ironman31, there are not very many (ELO rated) French players with ratings of 2500 (in fact there are only about 100 such players in the world) so the easy way to clear himself is to identify himself. Players of this strength will play in the real world and will have an ELO rating. Surely if he can prove who he is he deserves an apology and reinstatement but if he can't then he can't be as good as his RHP rating implies!
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugTo a certain extent I agree. Look at the latest issue of BCM and you will find 3 recent GM games where the GM blundered and resigned instantly having missed a simple immediately winning reply.
Ironman31 had a (near) 2500 RHP rating not a 2500 ELO rating.
And even if he is 2500 OTB then how does that mean that he is owed an apology? His games have been analysed and found to consistently match engines. According to those learned in these issues, that does not happen by chance, even with Grandmasters.
So even a GM will make the occasional mistake.
How do you think RHP ratings compare to ELO ratings? I think the formula used is the same.
Originally posted by Dragon FireELO ratings are not a set of ratings. FIDE is. Or USCF. Or NZCF. ELO is the formula upon which all these sets are based. RHP is the same.
How do you think RHP ratings compare to ELO ratings? I think the formula used is the same.
However each set is an isolated system and are therefore not comparable in any meaningful way. Especially since RHP ratings are based on correspondence chess and FIDE on classical.
Originally posted by David TebbCome on you must be kidding. I don't know how RHP and ELO ratings compare but anyone who can play at the 2500 level must be an IM at the very minimum. No one who has not had considerable experience of OTB chess and played competitively (and has, as a result, got a rating) would be able to suddenly start playing on RHP at that level.
Ironman31 is Italian. I know his real name (I'm not going to publish it here) and can tell you that he is definitely not an International Master or Grandmaster. In fact, there's no record of him ever having a FIDE rating.
There are not many Italian players rated that highly either.