A) I did not intend to engage in another debate as to whether there should be Game Mods at all; we had that debate six months ago and 90% of the people who voted endorsed the concept. For those who want to see the reasons why they did so, read the December threads - I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for;
B) I didn't say that players who weren't really strong and really experienced couldn't be Game Mods; I just think that it is logical for the majority to be both strong players and have experience with engines. It's not a personal reflection on Phlabby (even though he is a jerk) but to have half the Game Mod team be composed of players who lack experience in ID'ing those factors which are indicative of strong players and those of which are indicative of chess engines seems foolish. I see nothing wrong with "average" players running analyses and such, but I would like the ultimate decisions to be made by a group of strong and experienced players. It seems to me this would be a good way to protect against unfounded accusations.
Originally posted by PullhardHere we go again with this BS! Please start another thread if you intend to drag us off-topic with the neverending "books and databases" argument.
Chess is a game of mental agility. It is the game of Kings. I agree with anything that makes online chess as much like the real thing as possible.
If one is against an artificial practice such as the use of a chess engine, surely they must also be against the use of databases, opening books and anything else that gives a player an advantage they wouldn't normally have in a face to face match?
Originally posted by no1marauderalright, sounds reasonable.
A) I did not intend to engage in another debate as to whether there should be Game Mods at all; we had that debate six months ago and 90% of the people who voted endorsed the concept. For those who want to see the reasons why they did so, read the December threads - I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for;
B) I didn't say that players who were ...[text shortened]... enced players. It seems to me this would be a good way to protect against unfounded accusations.
Originally posted by dfm65Excellent point. We really must remind ourselves who we are out to catch. We're not trying to catch those players that always cheat. What good does that do us? Their rating effects the strength of their play, which is the strength of the engine they're using. I wouldn't mind having some computers to play against, as long as it doesn't hurt me when I lose. Yes, we may have someone at the top that doesn't deserve it, but is it really worth all of this trouble?
i'm 90% with Shav on this one...it's just a game, nothing is riding on the result except maybe your ego. personally i couldn't give a rat's arse if someone uses an engine against me - playing strong players brings out the best in me and i invariably learn something from the game. in fact, i'd rather play someone using an engine than someone who just made ...[text shortened]... g from the game. it only matters if you have pegged your ego to winning here and to your rating.
I believe the reason cheating upsets people, and why we have the cheat police is those times when we lose terribly to someone that doesn't have a very high rating. Or if we play against a provisional player, the same thing can happen. We believe that they were using an engine for that game, but since their rating doesn't reflect their true play, we don't have a good game, and our rating suffers. But this type of cheating is nearly impossible to detect.
I'm not sure where my stance is on the cheat police. I'm just giving something to think about.
1 edit
Originally posted by ark13No offense ark13 , but what you think about having cheat police is not pertinent to this discussion - a vote was taken and as no1 pointed out 90% voted in favor of it . Can we now proceed from there without beating this dead horse once again ?
Excellent point. We really must remind ourselves who we are out to catch. We're not trying to catch those players that always cheat. What good does that do us? Their rating effects the strength of their play, which is the strength of the ...[text shortened]... s on the cheat police. I'm just giving something to think about.
No1 , what do you think about splitting the cheat police into two seperate entities ? We need hard core experienced players to bust the cheats , and then bring the solid case with their evidence to site admin for prosecution .
But I still agree it's more than a two man job .
Originally posted by Moldy Crowi think there were possibly some serious procedural flaws in this vote. RHP claims to have 70,000+ members, and as of now, 7583 have moved in the last 100 days. So let's say there are 7000 active users, and assume the number hasn't changed too much from when the vote was taken, which seems reasonable.
No offense ark13 , but what you think about having cheat police is not pertinent to this discussion - a vote was taken and as no1 pointed out 90% voted in favor of it . Can we now proceed from there without beating this dead horse once again ?
Yet, of these 7000, only 193 voted. why? could it be that a) the vast majority don't care about this issue? or - more likely i think - b) the vast majority didn't even know the vote was being conducted? If a country held an election that only a small percentage of the population were told about, the UN would be stamping its little feet in outrage.
I think that an auto-PM has to go out to all members a decent period before any important vote, detailing 1. what is to be voted on; 2. how to vote; 3. when the vote is to be conducted; and 4. that the issue can be discussed in the forums.
If this wasn't done, i think the previous vote should be declared null and void, and a new, fair vote conducted.
Originally posted by dfm65
i think there were possibly some serious procedural flaws in this vote. RHP claims to have 70,000+ members, and as of now, 7583 have moved in the last 100 days. So let's say there are 7000 active users, and assume the number hasn't changed too much from when the vote was taken, which seems reasonable.
Yet, of these 7000, only 193 voted. why? could it be t ...[text shortened]... one, i think the previous vote should be declared null and void, and a new, fair vote conducted.
You are right. 90% of nothing is... nothing. And "nothing" is a poor 2% of the active players. So, this votation IMHO is nonsense.
-J
Originally posted by dfm65I joined in mid december . I had maybe a week's exposure to the site prior to joining . I heard about the issue , researched it , and voted . Anyone else who cared and was involved could have done the same . Even the U N can't cure apathy . What's done is done .
i think there were possibly some serious procedural flaws in this vote. RHP claims to have 70,000+ members, and as of now, 7583 have moved in the last 100 days. So let's say there are 7000 active users, and assume the number hasn't changed too much from when the vote was taken, which seems reasonable.
Yet, of these 7000, only 193 voted. why? could it be t ...[text shortened]... one, i think the previous vote should be declared null and void, and a new, fair vote conducted.
Originally posted by Moldy Crowi disagree. i think a voter turnout of 2-3% clearly indicates the vote was unknown to a great many constituents. Some people just come here to play chess. They don't visit the forums. It's not a reason to take away their opportunity to vote on an issue that concerns them. We need a fair vote.
I joined in mid december . I had maybe a week's exposure to the site prior to joining . I heard about the issue , researched it , and voted . Anyone else who cared and was involved could have done the same . Even the U N can't cure apathy . What's done is done .
Originally posted by dfm65I give up; screw you people. The "do-nothings" always seem to prevail over the ones who want to improve the site. I'm tired of this BS.
i disagree. i think a voter turnout of 2-3% clearly indicates the vote was unknown to a great many constituents. Some people just come here to play chess. They don't visit the forums. It's not a reason to take away their opportunity to vote on an issue that concerns them. We need a fair vote.
