Originally posted by murrowToo late! Your thoughts were picked up by the spyware and d/led to the site! 😀
last night when i couldn't get to sleep (too much tea) i thought of a devilishly clever way for the gamemods to work out if someone has been cheating. i'd better not share it with you, though, in case it is indeed their method and i ruin everything.
http://chortle.ccsu.ctstateu.edu/CS151/cs151java.html
"This is a first course in Computer Science using the programming language Java. It covers the fundamentals of programming and of computer science.
For maximum benefit, go though these notes interactively, thinking about and answering the question at the bottom of each page. There are about 15 pages per chapter. If you spend about 3 minutes per page each chapter will take about 45 minutes; much more, if you copy and run some of the programs. If you are a beginning programmer, plan on spending more than a month with this. "
Originally posted by zeeblebotGet lost, nerd; this ain't a computer security problem.
http://chortle.ccsu.ctstateu.edu/CS151/cs151java.html
"This is a first course in Computer Science using the programming language Java. It covers the fundamentals of programming and of computer science.
For maximum benefit, go though these notes interactively, thinking about and answering the question at the bottom of each page. There are about 15 p ...[text shortened]... he programs. If you are a beginning programmer, plan on spending more than a month with this. "
Originally posted by derek9037Some moves that are made by an engine would not be made by a strong human player, that is so. It is debatable that there are a great number of them played, however. One move cannot "prove" engine use. If a player is consistently not matching up with engine suggested moves, he's probably not using an engine; certainly not to a degree where it could be stated that there was "overwhelming evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" - the standard the Game Mods say they are operating under. I too get a feel for when I'm playing an engine, but I can't say with any degree of certainty until I analyze the game with an engine afterward.
I have been following this thread and cannot for the life of me understand why nobody seems to have picked up on Gatecrashers clues as to what's going on.
A player can play 1,000 games and match up less than 70% in them all. That doesn't mean he isn't using an engine.
You just have to know how to look at the games.
OK one tiny scenario (of ma ...[text shortened]... f it turns out I'm wrong (I'm only talking about my games with him) then I'm talking rubbish.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotWill you please either get out of this thread or stick to the topic at hand? Your computer security s**t has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. Other than being an annoying prick, you are accomplishing nothing and adding nothing to the discussion as you seem utterly uninformed about chess and chess engines. Your posts over the last page or so are childish.
look what popped outa no1m's mouth this time 😵😵 ... ain't it past your bedtime over there? ...
Originally posted by no1marauderYea! What you said!
Will you please either get out of this thread or stick to the topic at hand? Your computer security s**t has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. Other than being an annoying prick, you are accomplishing nothing and adding nothing to the discussion as you seem utterly uninformed about chess and chess engines. Your posts over the last page or so are childish.
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
Will you please either get out of this thread or stick to the topic at hand? Your computer security s**t has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. Other than being an annoying prick, you are accomplishing nothing and adding nothing to the discussion as you seem utterly uninformed about chess and chess engines. Your posts over the last page or so are childish.
You're an idiot.
(cough ...)
....
let us enter into a discussion of case law vs. common law, maybe you could make some kind of intelligent contribution to that ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat post was a perfectly adult reaction to your idea that people should take a Computer Science course in order to understand the issue of chess engines and detection of their use.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]You're an idiot.
(cough ...)
....
let us enter into a discussion of case law vs. common law, maybe you could make some kind of intelligent contribution to that ...[/b]