Originally posted by RagnorakIf you want someone to confirm what you already know...what is the point really?
I agree wholeheartedly.
That is why we need something to be announced by the mods as Exy wasn't a cheater using the chess engine for every move.
Thanks for summing up the point of the people wanting some kind of statement from the game mods so succinctly, Rapalla.
D
What do you want from the game mods...for them to come on and just say to you...."DUH" as the answer to your question?
Would it be just as good if I said it?
RTh
Originally posted by arrakisWHOA! Yuy really are an idiot. "doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground"??? Is that the best you got?? I take it as an insult to myself also to see how you refer to a 1400 player. I am in the 1100's now and have set a goal for myself to be a 1400 player within the next few months. As a former boxer my head has been banged around a lot and has taken a lot of hits in my other sports as well, but I am still a very intelligent person. I have a masters degree and teach history. Does 1100 make me stupid, no. Does 1800 make you smart, maybe, but with idiotic statements like the one you said about phlab and 1400 players you sound very stupid. I will get to 1400 and will be very proud of myself when I do. But if you think thats bad or look down on me for that than you can come visit me in Philadelphia, and trust me, I won't be showing you any "brotherly love" 😠
WHOA! Exy was NEVER an 1100 player! Phlabibit made that ridiculous claim. But from what I've seen about Phlabibit, he plays 1400 level chess, doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground, and is more concerned about serving his political agenda. 😠
Originally posted by RingtailhunterWith all due respect, Mike, so what if it might be debateable? At least it would be an informed debate rather than a bunch of uninformed speculation. I'm perfectly aware and have stated numerous times that I am aware that different engines set at different computing power and different time of analysis will yield different results. But if the parameters of the analysis are revealed, then the results should be repeatable. Since the standard is "overwhelming evidence" matchups should be fairly high, there should be no game threatening blunders and the game would have to be closely examined for moves which appear to be uniquely human i.e. one that an engine would never make, but a human would be quite likely to. When I was analyzing my first OTB tournament game in about 30 years with Fritzie, there came a point in the game where it's preferred line would have meant capturing a piece with a pawn rather than my Queen and then a few moves later exchanging Queens and heading for an endgame. However, the pawn capture would have left me tripled, isolated pawns which no human player of any strength is going to want in an endgame! Your argument, taken to its logical extreme, proves too much: it suggests that engine analysis can NEVER reveal whether someone is using an engine. If that is so, then the Game Mods may has well pack up and leave Dodge. But we both know that engine analysis, properly interpreted in totality with other factors can lead to "overwhelming evidence" of engine use.
No1,
Now let me just throw this out there. What “if” the game mods did decide to show you the games that they took into consideration? Have you not given any attention to what has happened in the past when games are analyzed? Not one of you hunyuks can seem to agree on how many match ups constitute cheating in how many games! When it comes down ...[text shortened]... aments that are held? How can there be any winner? Wouldn’t every game end in a draw?
RTh
Please don't think I am so stupid that I think every game between computer engines ends in a draw!!
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1,
With all due respect, Mike, so what if it might be debateable? At least it would be an informed debate rather than a bunch of uninformed speculation. I'm perfectly aware and have stated numerous times that I am aware that different engines set at different computing power and different time of analysis will yield different results. But if the parameters ...[text shortened]... se don't think I am so stupid that I think every game between computer engines ends in a draw!!
Personally I respect your position in wanting to know more about how means justify the ends, but for me I guess it’s not that important to know how they got there. I think that this whole Exy thing is an issue because of popularity.
If I can use an example of tlai and JW, there ratings shot up just as quickly. The difference there was that most people could not stand the little bastards. Exy on the other hand has a few friends here which are making his banning a pain in the ass. There are others who all of the sudden “Got” Chess but are nonetheless not pursued. If Exy was either of those two bozos not a word would be said I bet.
RTh
Originally posted by RingtailhunterI can't speak for others and as I already stated it's true that no matter what the evidence is some people won't believe their internet "friends" cheated. The main reason I'm having a hard time believing that Exy used an engine is that I played 12 games against him and my game analyses of over 500+ non-opening book moves shows about a 58% matchup and quite a few serious, losing blunders. The other players that I played who were banned showed extremely high matchups in at least some of their games and no serious errors. I am open to contrary proof, but what I have in front of me, which are a series of games covering the time period from last August to this June says Exy didn't cheat in our games. If the claim is that Exy cheated two years ago to raise his rating like tlai and jw did, why can't someone just say so?
No1,
Personally I respect your position in wanting to know more about how means justify the ends, but for me I guess it’s not that important to know how they got there. I think that this whole Exy thing is an issue because of popularity.
If I can use an example of tlai and JW, there ratings shot up just as quickly. The difference there was tha ...[text shortened]... ss not pursued. If Exy was either of those two bozos not a word would be said I bet.
RTh
Originally posted by RingtailhunterAhhh, no. The difference is that tlai admitted to cheating, and woodley matched up 100% to chessmaster. When questioned to identify a human move, he copied and pasted the english language advice from chessmaster as his answer. Which was wrong anyway, as the problem was picked specifically as a position that humans could spot easily while computers would blunder.
If I can use an example of tlai and JW, there ratings shot up just as quickly. The difference there was that most people could not stand the little bastards.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakC'mon, Ragnorak, we all knew Tlai was cheating before he admitted it. And the reason why JW was asked that question was because GOS and others knew he was cheating. I'm willing to concede that anybody who has earned a low rating and then starts winning every single game for an extended period (weeks) is almost certainly cheating; dominic was a recent example. If there's a period where this happened with Exy, if somebody would simply ID the time period, I'd look at some representative games though it would also help if they gave me the engine they suspected him of using.
Ahhh, no. The difference is that tlai admitted to cheating, and woodley matched up 100% to chessmaster. When questioned to identify a human move, he copied and pasted the english language advice from chessmaster as his answer. Which was wrong anyway, as the problem was picked specifically as a position that humans could spot easily while computers would blunder.
D
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.rhp15.com/pictures/Exy.jpg
C'mon, Ragnorak, we all knew Tlai was cheating before he admitted it. And the reason why JW was asked that question was because GOS and others knew he was cheating. I'm willing to concede that anybody who has earned a low rating and then starts winning every single game for an extended period (weeks) is almost certainly cheating; dominic was a recent e ...[text shortened]... entative games though it would also help if they gave me the engine they suspected him of using.
2 edits
Originally posted by RingtailhunterI saw that but without time periods it's meaningless. And Dustnrogers graph looks like that every other month! If the Game Mods would simply state that they believe Exy used an engine to improve his rating from time X to time y, I could do an independent evaluation of that claim but I'm not going to analyze a bunch of games from 2 years ago only to have them say "Nope, we never said he cheated back then!"
http://www.rhp15.com/pictures/Exy.jpg
EDIT: How do you get to a player like Exy's early games; he's got about 75 pages on his games pages. How do you get to the early ones (please don't tell me I have to click 55 times from page 20).
Originally posted by no1marauderWell I think that if one of the game mods went through all of the trouble to copy and post that screen shot then that same mod should be able to either give you a link, or at the very least the date of the snapshot.
I saw that but without time periods it's meaningless. And Dustnrogers graph looks like that every other month! If the Game Mods would simply state that they believe Exy used an engine to improve his rating from time X to time y, I could do an independent evaluation of that claim but I'm not going to analyze a bunch of games from 2 years ago only to hav ...[text shortened]... How do you get to the early ones (please don't tell me I have to click 55 times from page 20).
Originally posted by PhlabibitI've had just about enough of this nonsense. My rating / graph rise was examined and thoroughly discussed at the time.
My rating here is in the 1400's now, and that's not too bad for playing social chess, moderating forums, and trying to do the chess players at this site a service by helping with game moderators. I could easily be 16 to 18 hundred if I were to put as much time into my game as I have put into this site.
Also, I stand corrected. Exy was Sub 1100. Her ...[text shortened]... re than trying to get cheaters off of RHP for the people who were tired of playing cheats.
P-
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=9314
There is no evidence through looking at my games / stlye of play / that I use Fritz or Crafty or anything else. I admitted that I use Winboard as my move tool, unfortunately the default setting is for it to be loaded with GNU Chess (and this is the only "engine" my games should match if I used it, as accused.
I believe that I have been banned solely on "circumstantial" evidence which has been obtained by secretly capturing data from my PC's hard drive and the Game Mods have misinterpreted this "evidence" and choose to see the worst motives in it. I don't deny that I use Winboard, I am now aware that it comes bulk-loaded with a crap engine, which I deny using. I did analyse some of my finished games with and I'm sure there are log files that have be secretly detected on my PC that are being taken as proof that I cheated.
I would suggest that people look at Phlab's graph, as it starts to rise, you'll find that is the period when I subscribed to the site and went from playing 6 games to many, I used to resign my pre-subscription games just to get a new one started whenever an opponent went offline for more than a couple of days, also I was only just getting back into chess 2 years ago and really wasn't sure how seriously I was going to play at this site, until I subscribed.
Now look at the players I beat in this "suspicious" graph rise - all under 1550 - the rating I steady at for a some time, which I am sure the likes of Ragnorak and No1marauder shall recall. People are trying to say that "evidence" is clear cut and black and white, but it never can be. I have been the victim of circumstancial "evidence" used to make a controversial scalp to scare the community into not cheating as I suspect that the Game Mods at this point cannot give anyone "varied and conclusive" enough evidence that would ever be convincing.