Originally posted by shavixmirI heard you're actually dfm65.
I'm not in a good mood today.
So let it be known. Should I EVER notice somebody checking my games for cheating (not that it's likely considering my score), I will be so pissed off, dismayed, upset and insulted that I will spam the no-good freak for the rest of eternity.
The mere idea of having my integrity questioned is enough to blast me off into 30.000 word hate mails.
So there.
My final words on the matter.
Originally posted by chessnut57From my 640 games, opponents percentage matches at different levels on this site (book opening moves not included):
This thread began with some percentages given on how often some players moves matched Fritz 8. What percentage of matches is too high for a given players rating? For me personally once outside of the opening I doubt if I usually match up more than 30-40% of the time, maybe less, I’ve never taken the time to check. For a player rated 1800+ you would obviou ...[text shortened]... looking suspicious? What percentage of your moves matched the engine (on average) no1marauder?
-1200 31%
1201-1300 33%
1301-1400 39%
1401-1500 42%
1501-1600 48%
1601-1700 51%
1701-1800 61%
1801-1900 63%
1901-2000 69%
2001-2100 77%
2100+ 79%
Two caveats: This was there average rating when they played their games against me (rating at start + rating at finish/2); some players who I played early in their RHP careers were only 1400-1500's but wound up being 2000+. Second, obviously the top brackets (and some of the others) are skewed by cheaters and probably significantly overstate a true "average" matchup. One of the top players on the site I played a couple of games with who is clearly not an engine user, matched up 43/59 or 73%. For the record, I match up 64%. Usernames who are constantly running matches in the 80-90% or more are almost certainly engine users. I also only have Fritz8 and a computer that only allows me to run analyses at 32MB; better systems or different engines would yield somewhat different results but I don't think that it would be significant for our purposes.
I agree with XanthosNZ mostly that simple match ups percentages aren't total "proof" but I would submit a constant series of games reaching the levels I have previously mentioned would make a strong prima facie case. I'm not sure you can find peculiar "engine" moves, however; again this would vary with the engine and the computing power of the username. There is still a need for an experienced and strong player (or preferably several of them) to look over the games in question and make a judgment. It has already been stated that the evidence has to be overwhelming, but I strongly disagree with those who are saying it is "impossible" to know; I'm certain that if a legal system can punish burglars based on evidence there's no reason a internet chess site can't punish a cheater based on the strongest possible evidence and the considered judgments of "experts". Other sites do it routinely.
As time has passed, I have come to the belief that the Game Moderator team was nothing more than a pacifier to those of us who were vocal in the forums about having cheaters weeded out. Same goes for the vote on the clan challenge system. Merely a pacifier. Nothing has actually been done.
Actually, that's not true. A mouthy teenager who was rated 900 was kicked off the site for using an engine in a handful of games after admitting he got his "Dad" to help him. He was kicked off the Site within a couple days of his guilty admission in the forums. Personally, I think that Phlabibit's role as Game Moderator is closely linked to his role as Forum Moderator.
I agree with Mr. Marauder in the fact that the subscribers should be made aware of what action the moderator team has taken to make the site as fair as possible and how they have improved the site for those who care about fair play (and to those who believe that since no one voted, no one cares: you are dead wrong). If through a forum thread or perhaps a bi-monthly PM to all subscribers, some kind of update should be sent out.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes...
I strongly disagree with those who are saying it is "impossible" to know; I'm certain that if a legal system can punish burglars based on evidence there's no reason a internet chess site can't punish a cheater based on the strongest possible evidence and the considered judgments of "experts". Other sites do it routinely.
and an average 6% of prisoners in England are wrongly convicted. Locked up through fumbling and miscarriages of justice.
Take a peek at death row figures in the US: http://www.tcadp.org/factsAndFigures.htm
It's obvious justice is not objective.
As for punishment being a deterrent...naaaaaa....never was, never will be.
The only thing punishment and prosecution does is create fear. The fear of being caught.
Fear leads to irrationality (as I've argued umpteen times) and irrational people are...well...basically irrational.
Tell me. Say I was using my Cheatmaster2005aSupercomputer and every so often I made a non-computer move, just to make things look good. Would I be spotted as a cheater?
How many non-computer moves would I need to make to not be spotted, yet still achieve high grades?
The tighter you clench your fist, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. - Princess Leia - .
Now, say I was in a constructive mood...which I'm not..., I would think of other means of deterring cheating.
From "Codes of honour" through "open discussion about the merits of using computers" to "the stimulation of realisation that cheating isn't actually winning and you don't do anything but fool yourself".
Oh. I'd already said my last words on the subject. Obviously not.
Originally posted by shavixmirOkay. You are obviously one who is not indifferent to the matter but actually against it. Don't you think that's sort of selfish? Sure, it's a bloody game but it's a bloody game that people have paid a nice chunk of change to play against other human opponents. It's one thing to be indifferent but to be against it??
Yes...
and an average 6% of prisoners in England are wrongly convicted. Locked up through fumbling and miscarriages of justice.
Take a peek at death row figures in the US: http://www.tcadp.org/factsAndFigures.htm
It's obvious justice is not objective.
As for punishment being a deterrent...naaaaaa....never was, never will be.
The only thing ...[text shortened]... ing but fool yourself".
Oh. I'd already said my last words on the subject. Obviously not.
Originally posted by darvlayI suggested a news ticker for announcements like this a few months back, but nobody seemed too interested.
If through a forum thread or perhaps a bi-monthly PM to all subscribers, some kind of update should be sent out.
BTW: Pms can't be sent out en-masse, which is why zach got banned for his mass pming. It completely backlogged the system.
D
Originally posted by darvlayI don't think it will work. I don't think it will have the desired effect. I think miscarriages of "justice" will occur. I think there are far better ways of tackling the problem, if it is a problem.
Okay. You are obviously one who is not indifferent to the matter but actually against it. Don't you think that's sort of selfish? Sure, it's a bloody game but it's a bloody game that people have paid a nice chunk of change to play against other human opponents. It's one thing to be indifferent but to be against it??
Originally posted by shavixmirFair enough.
I don't think it will work. I don't think it will have the desired effect. I think miscarriages of "justice" will occur. I think there are far better ways of tackling the problem, if it is a problem.
Personally, I don't find it a problem. It was a while ago when I was whipped by James Woodley four straight games but that's all ancient history. But I can see how higher rated players can run into these frustrations more frequently then a middle-of-the-road player like myself.
Originally posted by shavixmirI cannot say it is impossible that a "miscarriage of justice" will occur, but I would guess it's highly unlikely. I proposed a number of safeguards many months ago including that the "accused" be presented with the evidence against them and be allowed to defend themselves. I also proposed that they have a chance to admit guilt and receive some sort of probation rather than a banning. As far as I know, none of these suggestions were implemented.
Yes...
and an average 6% of prisoners in England are wrongly convicted. Locked up through fumbling and miscarriages of justice.
Take a peek at death row figures in the US: http://www.tcadp.org/factsAndFigures.htm
It's obvious justice is not objective.
As for punishment being a deterrent...naaaaaa....never was, never will be.
The only thing ...[text shortened]... ing but fool yourself".
Oh. I'd already said my last words on the subject. Obviously not.
Fear of being caught is a deterrent, Shav; the higher the likelihood that someone will be caught doing something generally the less likelihood they will do it. And we are not talking about something fairly innocent or nobody else's business; we're talking about directly adversely effecting another person. It's more than just against the rules to use an engine; it's disrespectful of your opponent's wish NOT to play against an engine.
There are various ways engine users can make themselves more difficult to ID, so what? If a group of strong and experienced players can't say that there is OVERWHELMING proof that they are cheating they are in the clear. You can't build a system that will perfectly detect cheating but you can catch the more obvious cheats and try to deter others. I'd be content with that.
Originally posted by no1marauderNow isn't this ironic? The great no1marauder upset with the way things have gone... Let me remind everyone that the only person TRAINED at computer busting was myself when the elections took place. And it was the great debater, no1marauder, who was personally responsible for running a smear campaign against myself!
I 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'm sure this poor, not-so-bright, individual was unaware of the damage he was doing to RHP at the time. But now the damage is done... and this is the result.
Originally posted by arrakisNormally a smear campaign consists at least partly of lies. As far as I can tell, no1marauder only reported on and criticized your behavior concerning a known cheater. If damage to the site was done by your not being elected a game mod, you have only yourself to blame.
Now isn't this ironic? The great no1marauder upset with the way things have gone... Let me remind everyone that the only person TRAINED at computer busting was myself when the elections took place. And it was the great debater, no1marauder, who was personally responsible for running a smear campaign against myself!
I'm sure this poor, not-so-bright, i ...[text shortened]... damage he was doing to RHP at the time. But now the damage is done... and this is the result.
Originally posted by arrakisTo quote Bowmann: What a load of twaddle! If you were on the mod team, how would things be any better??
Now isn't this ironic? The great no1marauder upset with the way things have gone... Let me remind everyone that the only person TRAINED at computer busting was myself when the elections took place. And it was the great debater, no1marauder, who was personally responsible for running a smear campaign against myself!
I'm sure this poor, not-so-bright, i ...[text shortened]... damage he was doing to RHP at the time. But now the damage is done... and this is the result.