05 Mar 08
Anyone who was 3(b) banned was identified as an engine user. Most engine users will achieve high ratings.
But thanks for bringing up the 3(b) list. It looks like two players were *just* 3(b) banned around 20 minutes ago. Oddly, both players were middle of the road (1500ish) with relatively few games.
Was this a typo? Should those be 3(a) or 3(c) instead? I'm guessing so as they wouldn't seem to meet the engine-user profile either in number of games played or peak rating.
If not...does that mean we have game moderation back?
05 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by IchibanovIt SAYS 3b but it SHOULD say 3a since if you look at the games this was a clear case of multiple accounts: the player ranked lower at the end (below 1300) kept losing VERY short games in the same way to the same opponent (building up the rating of that opponent). The two opponents involved in these games are the two banned players (i.e., the two banned accounts).
Anyone who was 3(b) banned was identified as an engine user. Most engine users will achieve high ratings.
But thanks for bringing up the 3(b) list. It looks like two players were *just* 3(b) banned around 20 minutes ago. Oddly, both players were middle of the road (1500ish) with relatively few games.
Was this a typo? Should those be 3(a) or 3(c) inst umber of games played or peak rating.
If not...does that mean we have game moderation back?
05 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mark Adkins3(b) While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party.
It SAYS 3b but it SHOULD say 3a since if you look at the games this was a clear case of multiple accounts: the player ranked lower at the end (below 1300) kept losing VERY short games in the same way to the same opponent (building up the rating of that opponent). The two opponents involved in these games are the two banned players (i.e., the two banned accounts).