Originally posted by no1marauderI found some of his old CC games and a few years ago, 1991?
I would have, and did, give him a chance to respond to my allegations although because of the restrictive rules on the site I could not contact him directly. I don't think there's anything that could have changed my mind, but I have to give the possibility, unlikely as it may seem, that he had some defense. What is lost by by giving someone the chance ...[text shortened]... ons; who knows? There were things to be potentially gained and nothing of importance to be lost.
He was rated around 1900 CC. Now we are in 2005 and he is 48 years
old and all of a sudden he is near GM? unlikely.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand the nature of wanting to give somebody the right to defend themselves. Most people that have been kicked have been given that chance. HOWEVER, in this case Russ and the mods decided that the evidence was SO OBVIOUS AND BLATENT AND OVERWHELMING, that there was no sense in continuing the debate.
I would have, and did, give him a chance to respond to my allegations although because of the restrictive rules on the site I could not contact him directly. I don't think there's anything that could have changed my mind, but I have to give the possibility, unlikely as it may seem, that he had some defense. What is lost by by giving someone the chance ...[text shortened]... ons; who knows? There were things to be potentially gained and nothing of importance to be lost.
I can say for myself, that I was so DISGUSTED with what we found/saw that it would have been pointless.
I was a clan-mate of IM31; I defended him; I was COMPLETELY wrong.
--tmetzler
Maybe one answer would be to have a few players in each country
who would be willing to meet a suspect face to face and have an
OTB game. If the results suggest the suspect is at about the rating
he appears to be, maybe that would get him off the hook. If however
as the result of a few OTB games he is found to be a thousand points
lower than his RHP rating, that would be damning evidence. Of course
for someone like IM you would need someone reasonably strong,
expert at least to give him a good run for his money. Master would
be better of course but you start running into the problem of not
enough masters to go around. What do you all think about this idea?
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by sonhouseWhats to say that somebody with a LOT of chess knowledge and ability will not use an engine online?
Maybe one answer would be to have a few players in each country
who would be willing to meet a suspect face to face and have an
OTB game. If the results suggest the suspect is at about the rating
he appears to be, maybe that would get him off the hook. If however
as the result of a few OTB games he is found to be a thousand points
lower than his RHP ra ...[text shortened]... ng into the problem of not
enough masters to go around. What do you all think about this idea?
I don't think any of the mods have said that IM31 was a moron with a computer. Most likely he was a very well-studied person with a LOT of chess information at his fingertips that just happened to use an engine as well. I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess, it IS NOT allowed here.
--tmetzler
Originally posted by sonhouseI think it's unnecessary and possibly useless. Some players play far better correspondence than OTB and some do not. I think their are adequate ways to tell if someone is using an engine on the net. I believe the evidence was overwhelming against IM. But I believe it would have been better for all concerned to inform him that he had been found guilty of using an engine and give him the opportunity to respond. It would have been perceived as fairer and given people more confidence in the process. Some, of course, would have NEVER accepted that IM was a cheat no matter what, but there seem to be a people in the community who question why he was surreptiously banned. The water may be under the bridge on this one, but as a matter of procedure I would like to see some rudimentary due process safeguards in the interests of fair play.
Maybe one answer would be to have a few players in each country
who would be willing to meet a suspect face to face and have an
OTB game. If the results suggest the suspect is at about the rating
he appears to be, maybe that would get him off the hook. If however
as the result of a few OTB games he is found to be a thousand points
lower than his RHP ra ...[text shortened]... ng into the problem of not
enough masters to go around. What do you all think about this idea?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPoint taken. I will raise this issue, but it is not quite as dire as you seek to make it. Again, you are applying legal parallels to an issue of sport.
If the evidence is strong enough, then there should be no fear of presenting some of it to the accused and giving them a chance to respond to the Game Mods. If their guilt is so apparent, what is lost? I didn't ask for public exposure of the evidence; I asked that the accused themselves be given some opportunity to rebut it. Having a Star Chamber like p ...[text shortened]... You can't do it this way and expect people to have anything but doubt about the results, Tmetz.
You see us as a prosecuting bench, rather than a panel of referees. You see some kind of death sentence being pronounced, rather than a whistle being blown for a foul and the player being sent off the pitch.
Someone said a muderer has more rights. That is true. But a murderer might receive a death penalty or life-long imprisonment.
All that happens to a cheat is that he has to go and play elsewhere. Even his subs are refunded. That is a small price to pay for the deception and dishonesty meted out to his/her opponents over the course of months or years.
Lets keep things in persepective.
Now, having said that, I will defintely be raising this issue and hopefully we can find a solution that is fair all round. Bear in mind that we have to protect the methodology. Its not just our asset, it benefits everyone who aims to play in cheat-free environment.
I cannot stress this enough, if the evidence is presented to the accused, nothing will prevent him/her informing the entire community of the methodology we have applied. And from that very moment, the methodology will be rendered worthless. Cheats will simply change their modus operandi to avoid future detection.
The challenge is to achieve the best of both worlds. Allow some form of defence, while at the same time protecting the Game Mod process.
Suggestions are welcome, because I can't figure a way to do that right now.
Its 6am. I'm tired, and I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
Originally posted by tmetzlerI think we've had this discussion before and engines are NOT allowed in most correspondence chess organizations. I remember Bbarr quoting from the rules of the largest organizations. I'll look it up, though it isn't terribly relevant.
Whats to say that somebody with a LOT of chess knowledge and ability will not use an engine online?
I don't think any of the mods have said that IM31 was a moron with a computer. Most likely he was a very well-studied person with a LOT of chess information at his fingertips that just happened to use an engine as well. I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess, it IS NOT allowed here.
--tmetzler
I agree that a strong player could still use an engine and that, of course, would enhance the strength of the centaur (human-engine team).
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by XanthosNZ
I think we've had this discussion before and engines are NOT allowed in most correspondence chess organizations. I remember Bbarr quoting from the rules of the largest organizations. I'll look it up, though it isn't terribly relevant.
I agree that a strong player could still use an engine and that, of course, would enhance the strength of the centaur (human-engine team).
Centaurs have four legs.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is exactly what IM31 was. A strong player with an even stronger engine.
I agree that a strong player could still use an engine and that, of course, would enhance the strength of the centaur (human-engine team).
Personally, if I were to give an "innocent" reason for what he did it would be:
A person that truly enjoys chess, that used an engine to "study" lines and try out new things while doing what WE ALL DO, which is try to learn and get something new out of every game we play.
IM31 was definitely not the ordinary engine cheat. He was way beyond that. From what I have been PM'd, told, etc, I don't think he did it for "glory", I think he did it for the love of chess. Unfortunately for him, using an ENGINE is not allowed here. He is welcome to use it elsewhere to further his own personal pursuits.
--tmetzler
Originally posted by tmetzlerYou are a game mod and has the face to say:
Whats to say that somebody with a LOT of chess knowledge and ability will not use an engine online?
I don't think any of the mods have said that IM31 was a moron with a computer. Most likely he was a very well-studied person with a LOT of chess information at his fingertips that just happened to use an engine as well. I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess, it IS NOT allowed here.
--tmetzler
"... I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess..."
Which is your knowledge/understanding of chess competition rules?
Non existent I believe. But anyway you qualify as a game mod...
Oh my.
-J
Originally posted by GatecrasherI haven't used the "murderer" analogy and wouldn't. Of course, the penalties here aren't as severe. But even in sport, a flag is raised and you are told what you did; sometimes you even get to argue about it (almost always in vain, but haven't you ever disputed a ref's call?). I basically don't have much problem with bannings for cheating, but if you look in Russ' original Game Mod thread many months ago in his first post he raised the issue what the community thought was an appropriate punishment. That's why I mentioned it in my post last December.
Point taken. I will raise this issue, but it is not quite as dire as you seek to make it. Again, you are applying legal parallels to an issue of sport.
You see us as a prosecuting bench, rather than a panel of referees. You see some kind of death sentence being pronounced, rather than a whistle being blown for a foul and the player being sent off the ...[text shortened]... 't figure a way to do that right now.
Its 6am. I'm tired, and I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
We can debate what, if any, evidence or explanation should be given the accused but I can't agree that someone can be simply banned on the QT and that is fair.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingI don't need to know the rules of other organizations. I only need to know the rules HERE at RHP. Its been discussed here before, and I do believe that many people have said that in SOME Correspondence Chess organizations engine use is allowed, do you refute that?
You are a game mod and has the face to say:
"... I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess..."
Which is your knowledge/understanding of chess competition rules?
Non existent I believe. But anyway you qualify as a game mod...
Oh my.
-J
Attack me all you want. I don't really care. I think that most people here know that I am not one to overstate my abilities.
--tmetzler
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingI've never used this term... but would this be a 'Straw Man'? I will admit I don't want to be wrong, but I could be.
You are a game mod and has the face to say:
"... I understand that using an engine is allowed in correspondence chess..."
Which is your knowledge/understanding of chess competition rules?
Non existent I believe. But anyway you qualify as a game mod...
Oh my.
-J
That also has nothing to do with how well someone can help a team check for engine abuse, so I'm not too worried.
P-