2 edits
Originally posted by SirUlrichFrom the RHP TOS:
Now that I am officially a Game Mod, please PM any accusations to me. That way we can keep the forums for all the witty threads and everyone on RHP who owns either Chessbase or Fritz can be dealt with accordingly. . . . watch this space for updates
🙂
[You will not] Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, RHP staff, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity
(I should ban you for bumping this thread alone.) ðŸ˜
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by Phlabibiti don't know if you've noticed, but abuse is against the TOS as well, and there have been lashings of it here...😉
From the RHP TOS:
[You will not] Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, RHP staff, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity
EDIT: Phla, can this stupid flame war be deleted from the thread? It's obscuring the debate...
Originally posted by RavelloQuit lumping me with stupid crap RTH is doing... Russ took care of it, and that's that.
You know what I'm talking abou,you damned redneck.
Lately you went around trying to slam some Rhp member,you and your good friend mod.
Then you started this crappy Shredder9UCI account.
You shouldn't even be here.
RTH and I haven't even really talked since he came back under a new name.
P-
Originally posted by dfm65I wish users would alert it more, seems people would rather just flame each other. That is a lot to erase... 4 pages or so today?
i don't know if you've noticed, but abuse is against the TOS as well, and there have been lashings of it here...😉
EDIT: Phla, can this stupid flame war be deleted from the thread? It's obscuring the debate...
Gah.
P-
Ah, the good old Chess Mod debate. Alive and kicking? I would have put a lot of effort and resources into this back in Jan/Feb. I had 4 fast PCs, several engines, and some reasonable chess ability on offer ...
Not that I was expecting to be chosen, but the way Russ totally ignored the voting and then under-manned the mods when there were plenty of keen volunteers available demonstrates just how little he feels about engine abuse and the views of RHP members.
It was all a futile exercise in lip-service.
This debate has not been revived by Russ, but by unhappy members (no1, in particular). Its naive to think that it will lead anywhere.
Great if it does... But who is going to commit to the time and effort required while the topic of engine abuse has been so consistently and repeatedly swept under the carpet by RHP management? Not I. And nor should anyone until we see some real action, determination, and a reciprocal commitment from Russ. I'm not holding my breath, though...
Originally posted by GatecrasherI am not naive, but I hoped that my fairly modest proposals would at least trigger some positive feedback from the Site Admins. But unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that your post is spot on and nothing of any significance will be done. The site might has well delete the "no engine" language from the TOS and be done with it.
Ah, the good old Chess Mod debate. Alive and kicking? I would have put a lot of effort and resources into this back in Jan/Feb. I had 4 fast PCs, several engines, and some reasonable chess ability on offer ...
Not that I was expecting to be chosen, but the way Russ totally ignored the voting and then under-manned the mods when there were plenty of k ...[text shortened]... , determination, and a reciprocal commitment from Russ. I'm not holding my breath, though...
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSpeaking from the point of view of the owners and administrators - without presuming of course to speak for Russ and Chrismo, or to put words in their mouths...well, let us imagine for a moment that i fill these roles...
I am not naive, but I hoped that my fairly modest proposals would at least trigger some positive feedback from the Site Admins. But unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that your post is spot on and nothing of any significance wi ...[text shortened]... ete the "no engine" language from the TOS and be done with it.
1.One way of judging whether an issue like this really needed attention for the good of the site would be to track the health of the site. If the site seemed to be in decline, we might be moved to find ways to combat this trend. If on the other hand the site appeared to be prospering, we would presumably take an 'if it ain't broke...' attitude, and get on with enhancing the site in positive ways.
2.I think the best numbers to track for the purposes of assessing the health of the site would be number of subscribers/users and number of games played over, say, a week. I don't know about the number of subscribers, but in the week or so since i started posting in this thread, the number of active users has gone from 7585 to 7626. Of course that would have to be tracked over a longer period to see if there really is an upward trend. The game rate also seems to be increasing rapidly. It's not so long ago we were anticipating game 1,000,000. Now we're past 1,270,000. That is, more than one in five of all RHP games was played in the what, last couple of months? Looks like the site is in great health to me.
3. So even if a couple of people leave over this, and i suspect the number would be very low, the number of incoming new users would more than compensate. And they might have more pleasant forum personalities too. The site is prospering, the sky isn't falling.
OK, maybe we can all take a chill pill now, and get back to playing chess...
Originally posted by no1marauderRuss is really going to need to muster up some nuts. He answered a few pm's of mine on the subject, he's also posted in the game mods forum, he's looking into some new users for the team, and it won't be a stupid public vote.
I am not naive, but I hoped that my fairly modest proposals would at least trigger some positive feedback from the Site Admins. But unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that your post is spot on and nothing of any significance will be done. The site might has well delete the "no engine" language from the TOS and be done with it.
Russ originally wanted a small team for some reason, and may still. Some of them bailed out very early due to the work load, leaving just David and I. Russ did state in his poll the final decision was his... so the vote was like giving him hints than picking the tream.
Number one made this public, I had made it private with Russ also before this all came about. I think he's starting to realize this is a problem, but it's just not a simple thing to get done.
How does USCF mail correspondence chess check for cheats? Number talked about how Playchess.com does it, but that just won't work with a game where you have days to think about a move. I'm afraid 'realtime' and correspondence chess can't be compared.
This is important to me, and I hope Russ is also going to start getting something better going. I'm not for 'this is not a problem'. I think engine use is a problem.
P-
What would it take?
Pick a random sample of games, say 10% of games recently completed.
Run all games through all engines.
Look for a high engine match.
Investigate further players whose games show a match.
etc
Figure out how long all this would take.
How many man-hours are needed?
That would give a rough idea of the team size needed.
To be seen doing something would discourage engine use.
Comments and esp. criticism welcome.
Originally posted by KneverKnightSay your sample consists of 5000 games. That's probably too small (you can't make any judgements based on one game by a player. Therefore you need at least a couple of times the number of active players) for what you want but let's assume.
What would it take?
Pick a random sample of games, say 10% of games recently completed.
Run all games through all engines.
Look for a high engine match.
Investigate further players whose games show a match.
etc
Figure out how long all this would take.
How many man-hours are needed?
That would give a rough idea of the team size needed.
To be seen doing something would discourage engine use.
Comments and esp. criticism welcome.
Now say the average number of half moves per game that aren't opening is 70 (35 moves for each player).
I have a very fast computer, but I still need to give Fritz 30 seconds on a position to get any reasonable analysis.
So we are looking at 5000*0.5*70/60 = 2917 computer hours