Apparently the game mods, finally having been backed into a corner have abandoned this thread in the hopes everyone will forget about it. Maybe they are right, I think we will forget about until the next person gets booted with no evidence of cheating presented.
Many of us in this thread have presented an excellent case for why public evidence is necessary AND why revealing it will not help cheaters in any significant way. Gamemods...your silence speaks volumes!!!
TheSkipper
Originally posted by arrakisIf you guys really did that (checking and reporting on software running on client machines), you were breaking the law.
I have to divulge some information here as a former Buster for ICC. There became a point where it was [b]necessary for the writers of on-line chess engines to insert backdoor software that would allow chess sites to determine if their chess software was active.
Note that this test determines the program is active and running in memory - it doesn't pr ...[text shortened]...
It just seems strange to me that Exy had Winboard open and was nailed for using that engine.[/b]
Please report to your nearest FBI office for immediate execution.
Originally posted by arrakisYes he does if he wants to.....you ain't the forum regulator are you??
You don't even belong in this conversation.
I read somewhere on this site that everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate in the forum.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Picard.😛
You know when I see threads like this disintegrate into pathetic flaming and abuse I'm actually glad they banned me. 😳
I'm now playing at a site where Chess is once again the focal point, there is lively team competition and a very pleasant and positive atmosphere, much like this site had when I first started here.
In the last year and especially in the last 6 months this place has turned to poison and I'm actually relived not to have to put up with it anymore or see it get any worse. 😕
Originally posted by no1marauder
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.
Originally posted by orfeo
I agree.
One of the things that worries me about this entire conversation is that the Game Mods may lack the reasoning skills to properly assess what should be confidential and what doesn't have to be.
I don't mean a personal attack by that statement. I'm really saying that a very LARGE proportion of people don't have those skills. It's a legal reasoning type of issue and like it or not, there's a reason why law continues to be a specialist profession.
I'm reminded of the way the media reports on court cases sometimes. They're aware that they shouldn't presume a person to be guilty, so they use the word "alleged". Often, however, they use it indiscriminately. I've heard a TV reporter talk about someone who has been hacked into pieces as being "allegedly murdered". It's quite obvious that the fact they were murdered is not in issue, what's in issue is WHO did it.
So, everything is "alleged" out of an abundance of caution. I can't help thinking that the Game Mods are marking everything "confidential" out of an abundance of caution.
Many of your probably won't like this post. So shoot me.
===========
it's not a legal/confidentiality issue ... it's a security issue ...
if it were a critical security issue, or they were paid, or there were a lot more of them, we might reasonably expect the mods to publish methods and results ... since it's not critical, and because they are volunteers, not paid, and because there are so few of them, it's reasonable that they don't ... anything that makes their jobs harder means more volunteer hours for them, and look how long it takes for them to produce results now ...
pow! 🙂 ...
if one of these banned "computer engine" players turns out to be topalov or another gm then i will not be at all impressed ... so far it seems the mods have 100% avoided banning a gm or a player with appropriately strong fide credentials ...
they have done this over and over and over.
if they made a genuine mistake then i think we would hear of it with some solid proof ... i would spread it myself ... i have been given flimsy proof of the genuineness of several banned players ... but never solid proof.
if the mods do not know what they are doing, then they will soon ban a legit player ... we will know.
i hope the innocent are not occasionally hurt .... until i am sure an innocent party is hurt i am satisfied ...
it seems the mods are doing well 🙂
Originally posted by zeeblebotPlease explain to me how showing the game analyses of public games, using commercially available or freeware engines would compromise "security". Please. Anyone. Please explain how it would make their jobs harder. Please. Anyone.
Originally posted by no1marauder
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 obviou ...[text shortened]... er hours for them, and look how long it takes for them to produce results now ...
pow! 🙂 ...
EDIT: It was one of the Game Mods who said such analyses were "confidential" like ALL of their evidence and specific conclusions.
Originally posted by no1maraudersurely you can see for yourself: if a player used some tricks to camouflage their engine use, but the mods still discovered the deceit, then those methods of exposition would be publicised, as would the tricks.
Please explain to me how showing the game analyses of public games, using commercially available or freeware engines would compromise "security". Please. Anyone. Please explain how it would make their jobs harder. Please. Anyone.
EDIT: It was one of the Game Mods who said such analyses were "confidential" like ALL of their evidence and specific conclusions.
my feellings go in different directions, but i can see why the mods would want to keep their methods and analyses secret.
Originally posted by no1marauderi don't think i can explain it to a lawyer ... maybe you can look at this:
Please explain to me how showing the game analyses of public games, using commercially available or freeware engines would compromise "security". Please. Anyone. Please explain how it would make their jobs harder. Please. Anyone.
EDIT: It was one of the Game Mods who said such analyses were "confidential" like ALL of their evidence and specific conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
Originally posted by flexmoreWhat does THAT mean?? Look either they have game analyses which match up at a high rate with an engine or they don't. And if a player doesn't match up with an engine at a high rate, which the Game Mods say is the best way to ID if they're using one, I'm at a complete loss to figure out how the Game Mods would "know" they were using an engine when they weren't! This whole extreme secrecy thing is BS; reveal the specific conclusions and stop trying to act like a freaking Star Chamber or something out of Kafka.
surely you can see for yourself: if a player used some tricks to camouflage their engine use, but the mods still discovered the deceit, then those methods of exposition would be publicised, as would the tricks.
my feellings go in different directions, but i can see why the mods would want to keep their methods and analyses secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure
"The issue of full disclosure was first raised in the context of locksmithing, in a 19th century controversy regarding whether weaknesses in lock systems should be kept secret in the locksmithing community, or revealed to the public. ...
Full disclosure can be controversial, as often these disclosures include code or executable tools to exploit the vulnerability. The argument against disclosure is that providing complete details or tools to malicious attackers, such as blackhats and script kiddies, allows them to take advantage of vulnerabilities more quickly and makes attacks more widespread. However, this argument assumes that without disclosure such tools and attacks would not have occurred. The advantage of disclosure is that whitehats will obtain the information, and that the vulnerability will be detected and patched more quickly."
===============
the blackhats here are cheaters, the whitehats are the mods, and the users are hatless. we've no need to know what tools the mods are using to detect cheaters. we are not using them ourselves.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThis is NOT a computer security problem; it is a matter of IDing whether someone is using a chess engine. Nerd solutions don't work; what you need is experienced chess players to look over game analyses of a player and determine whether he used an engine. it's not simple, but the computer aspects of it are rudimentary. I don't know crap about computers, but my game analyses by Fritz told me that IM. Yozzer, and others who have since been banned were using an engine. I think it's a major problem with the Mods that they are apparently trying to do a techno solution of some sort to what is, in the final analysis, a determination by humans using the best evidence available.
i don't think i can explain it to a lawyer ... maybe you can look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity