So what is the "varied and conclusive" evidence in a case like mine?
So far all that has been shown is a graph that confirms that my first games here were pants. This was known at the time and my subsequent games (which have been analysed by various people at various points) have not matched up significantly to any engine.
Simply saying that the player who lost to Timmy Toilet over two years ago could not beat David Tebb is not conclusive evidence. I don't think bad or irresponsible, careless play in any single game historically is proof beyond reasonable doubt that in order to win matches I systematically have relied on an engine - especially when no games have to be ventured forward as examples of clear engine use.
This same kind of circumstantial speculation could just as easily be applied to Gatecrashers games and graph. While there are other users with virtually no losses and ratings well over 2100 who still have free run of the site. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t make sense. đ
Originally posted by Steve ExeterCome on, you know that the evidence is, rightly or wrongly, simply not available, so to pretend your eviction was based on the evidence presented in this forum is silly. I don't think your continued presence here can achieve much.
So what is the "varied and conclusive" evidence in a case like mine?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI was resigned to the fact that Russ had detected GNU Chess on my PC (through whatever method) and that because of the prima facie evidence had no choice but to ban me for the integrity of the site.
Come on, you know that the evidence is, rightly or wrongly, simply not available, so to pretend your eviction was based on the evidence presented in this forum is silly. I don't think your continued presence here can achieve much.
If you're all so convinced that those methods of detection are not being employed then I am at a total loss as to why after 2 years of not spectacularly good or consistent play I was banned.
I don't intend to stay here after today.
Originally posted by Steve ExeterI don't believe you would have been banned just for having GNU Chess on your PC. I don't even believe you would have been banned for having it running during your spells on RHP (if the mods had some way of knowing).
I was resigned to the fact that Russ had detected GNU Chess on my PC (through whatever method) and that because of the prima facie evidence had no choice but to ban me for the integrity of the site.
If you're all so convinced that those methods of detection are not being employed then I am at a total loss as to why after 2 years of not spectacularly good or consistent play I was banned.
I don't intend to stay here after today.
We are also in the dark as to exactly what the evidence was. Many of us would like to know a little more. But we cannot conclude from your case that the mods must be using spyware.
Originally posted by dottewellIf there was a ligitimate means to detect the presence of an engine, then it would certainly be part of the evidence. It's like having proof that a suspect was in the vacinity of a murder. It wouldn't necessarily prove the player used the engine, just that he/she had the means to use the engine.
Perhaps the mods could answer this (in the negative) without giving too much away: Would you ban someone simply for having a chess engine running on their computer while logged on to RHP? (A "no" answer would of course leave open the possibility the mods have no idea whether an engine is running or not.)
But this is all completely academic, because neither we, nor RHP have any access to a player's PC. I would never be party such an activity anyway, even if it were possible. It would represent a gross invasion of privacy.
I posted a fairly detailed answer to the question, "What proves someone is cheating?" on this thread.
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31286&page=3
For those interested it may well be worth reading again.
Originally posted by GatecrasherI had not read that and I suggest _everyone_ should read it.
If there was a ligitimate means to detect the presence of an engine, then it would certainly be part of the evidence. It's like having proof that a suspect was in the vacinity of a murder. It wouldn't necessarily prove the player used the engine, just that he/she had the means to use the engine.
But this is all completely academic, because neither ...[text shortened]... showthread.php?threadid=31286&page=3
For those interested it may well be worth reading again.
Originally posted by GatecrasherI read it and find it sooooooo vague as to be useless. If the best evidence is a player matching up to an engine, if the games are public and if the engines are available commercially or as freeware (all of which are seemingly) true, then why don't you simply post some game analyses supporting a player's banning. Surely if it's "overwhelming evidence" that will be obvious.
If there was a ligitimate means to detect the presence of an engine, then it would certainly be part of the evidence. It's like having proof that a suspect was in the vacinity of a murder. It wouldn't necessarily prove the player used the engine, just that he/she had the means to use the engine.
But this is all completely academic, because neither ...[text shortened]... showthread.php?threadid=31286&page=3
For those interested it may well be worth reading again.
Originally posted by flexmoreBoth you and Exy win a similar percentage of your games about 60%. Exy has played about a 1000 more games than you. By his history, Exy has been mostly a 1800's to 1900's player in the last year or so. Given the way the ratings are calculated here which has a quantity as well as a quality element, it seems to me a difference in rating of a couple of hundred points between you and Exy is easily explainable without engine use.
exy seemed to play at a similarish level to me when first at rhp ... then suddenly grew to a much stronger player ... do you know anytihng about that?
(i often see mirages and dream in my sleep, i also watch fluff blow past in the breeze )