Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's a good point but i'm thinking this is a slightly different set of circumstances. But let me just give two opinions on your reply. One it's the "DNA" evidence that i'm posting about. I'm trying to understand how they obtained their evidence and if it can even be as accurate as your DNA analogy. Second, If we were to use a murder trial as an example we would had to have given Ironman a chance to defend himself. It doesn't appear he was. Anyone serious about chess knows that players exist with Ironmans talent.
When a murderer is convicted based on DNA evidence do you insist on seeing the little bits of paper that mean nothing to you?
We leave it in the hands of those people whose job it is to deal with that. We then listen to the conclusions they draw.
Originally posted by ZorinMost of his games, 90% percent of his moves were the first choice of whatever program the mods ran them through. Those are the facts we have.
But wouldn't it be all about mathmatical equations? Isn't it possible for someone to be THAT good and also be a member of RHP? Or is it based on volume? Meaning for example 900 of ironmans 1k plus wins match?
Dunno about any equations, and to put things in perspective, it IS possible for someone to be that good, but human good and computer good don't match. People here have analized games from the best players in the world and they don't match up the way IronMan31 did.
Originally posted by ZorinAs to your last sentence, I repeat what I said in another thread in the Chess Forum:
That's a good point but i'm thinking this is a slightly different set of circumstances. But let me just give two opinions on your reply. One it's the "DNA" evidence that i'm posting about. I'm trying to understand how they obtained their evidence and if it can even be as accurate as your DNA analogy. Second, If we were to use a murder trial as an exampl ...[text shortened]... oesn't appear he was. Anyone serious about chess knows that players exist with Ironmans talent.
But there is no player (not even Kasparov) strong enough to match up to a top engine in the high 90%, never make a blunder, play 100 games at a time and 100-200 moves per day. IM was a cheat, pure and simple.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZorinYes, there are strong players. But there is no player who will, by a fluke or a style of play, play close enough to an engine over a long enough period of time to be accused of being one by the Game Mods of this site.
That's a good point but i'm thinking this is a slightly different set of circumstances. But let me just give two opinions on your reply. One it's the "DNA" evidence that i'm posting about. I'm trying to understand how they obtained their evidence and if it can even be as accurate as your DNA analogy. Second, If we were to use a murder trial as an exampl ...[text shortened]... oesn't appear he was. Anyone serious about chess knows that players exist with Ironmans talent.
EDIT: Gah. Beaten by No1.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZorinWhy? That evidence belongs Russ, who owns this business. Based on this evidence, he has lost paying clients, and refunded their subs, and faced an inevitable barage of criticism.
I just feel like we should have a right to view the evidence.
But he has had the guts to carry out the plan that RHP voted on and overwhelmingly approved late last year. He has done it for the benefit of every honest chess player at RHP.
It is up to Russ whether evidence is made public or not. I am totally against it. I and others have given up hundred of hours of our free time to investigate, analyze and examine evidence. Any cheat seeing our evidence WILL KNOW HOW TO AVOID DETECTION IN THE FUTURE. If any evidence is released I will immediately resign as a Game Mod. I would not be prepared to waste so much of my time on a totally futile, self-defeating exercise.
So again I ask, why? Why do YOU want to see the evidence? For entertainment value? To further humiliate those banned from the site? Or to gain insight on how not to get caught?
Whatever the motive may be, it will DEFINTELY NOT be for the benefit of those who have been banned. I can assure you of that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Gatecrashergatecrasher what is the purpose of evidence? Isn't it to prove guilt or innoncence?
Why? That evidence belongs Russ, who owns this business. Based on this evidence, he has lost paying clients, and refunded their subs, and faced an inevitable barage of criticism.
But he has had the guts to carry out the plan that RHP voted on and overwhelmingly approved late last year. He has done it for the benefit of every honest chess player at RH ...[text shortened]... will DEFINTELY NOT be for the benefit of those who have been banned. I can assure you of that.
edit innocence
Originally posted by ZorinWhy should the game mods have to prove anything to you of all people? You're not even a subscriber.
gatecrasher what is the purpose of evidence? Isn't it to prove guilt or innoncence?
They've proved it to Russ, the creator of the site and the one who takes the major hit if it's wrong.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by ZorinGateCrasher said:
gatecrasher what is the purpose of evidence? Isn't it to prove guilt or innoncence?
edit innocence
"Whatever the motive may be, it will DEFINTELY NOT be for the benefit of those who have been banned. I can assure you of that."
Meaning: releasing said evidence will NOT help the banned users, as it is conclusive.