Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 15 Nov '08 14:58
    It's gone. You cannot openly accuse a player of cheating!

    I agree with Jie here.

    This stuff should really be kept off the main public forum.

    But having said that I can understand why Squelch, Korch, Fat Lady
    are risking further bans. Frustration.

    The evidence presented has been enough to convict other users.
    As Squelch said, other players have been banned on less proof.

    I advise we wait till the 'high heid yins' (Robbie will explain that term).
    have analysed the evidence and make a conclusion.

    There will be hand wringing, head scratching and much debating.

    We are not not hounding some poor 1500 player playing at being a
    big boy. Nor some guy doing it for a laugh (some are so obvious they
    just want to get caught).

    This is a proven strong chess player. An IM elect.

    If he goes then why was he not caught before?

    If he does not go then were they correct about the players who have
    been banned on lesser evidence.

    Glad I'm not the one making the decision.
  2. 15 Nov '08 15:14
    I guess it is just very difficult to catch these people.
    The people in charge of dishing out bannings for cheating have a decent excuse for not catching people in that they easily could have not played the person.
    The people getting angry have the damning truth so obvious to them because they have.
  3. 15 Nov '08 15:31
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    It's gone. [b]You cannot openly accuse a player of cheating!

    I agree with Jie here.

    This stuff should really be kept off the main public forum.

    But having said that I can understand why Squelch, Korch, Fat Lady
    are risking further bans. Frustration.

    The evidence presented has been enough to convict other users.
    As Squelch said, other pl ...[text shortened]... ayers who have
    been banned on lesser evidence.

    Glad I'm not the one making the decision.[/b]
    If he does not go then I will start a petition requesting all previously banned players be re-instated due to unsafe evidence.
  4. 15 Nov '08 15:43 / 1 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    3 tickets.
    PM me your email address & you can have a full annotated copy of all 20 games.
  5. 15 Nov '08 15:43
    Originally posted by doodinthemood
    I guess it is just very difficult to catch these people.
    The people in charge of dishing out bannings for cheating have a decent excuse for not catching people in that they easily could have not played the person.
    The people getting angry have the damning truth so obvious to them because they have.
    You are right Dood.

    I'd get a bit peed off if I bumped into a user.

    I've been lucky but there again I'm only playing under 1500's
    because I have wee side bet with Fat Lady that I can get to 2000
    one or two points at a time.

    Also ATM I don't have the time to throw myself in and dedicate the
    time that the game would demand if I took on some of the bigger guns.

    (not meant as an unkind cut. I'm enjoying the games. It's keeping
    my tactical powder dry).

    Perhaps at the end of the year I'll take on 10-12 of the 'good guys'.

    (just seen Squelch's last post - looks like this thread won't around
    long either. )
  6. Standard member Jie
    15 Nov '08 15:43
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    It's gone. You cannot openly accuse a player of cheating!

    I agree with Jie here.

    This stuff should really be kept off the main public forum.
    There are people who went to military school and cannot listen unless its whipped into them. People are here to play chess. This is a friggin chess site.
  7. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    15 Nov '08 16:03
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    This is a proven strong chess player. An IM elect.
    that we don't know. there used to be a guy named 'jean hebert' here, claiming to be the canadian IM. well, not only did he get banned, but also I emailed the real guy, who hadn't ever even heard about rhp.

    and even if he was who he claimed, it should make absolutely no difference. strong players have cheated before. and wasn't even IM31 a fide arbiter or something like that? sadly, it happens. human nature I guess.
  8. 15 Nov '08 16:11
    Strength or status in FIDE or any other major chess organization shouldn't exclude one from scrutiny, especially with strong evidence that they've been cheating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Topalov accused of cheating at one point?

    The bottom line is you HAVE to expect very close scrutiny and even accusations of cheating if you're one of the top rated players on any site.
  9. 15 Nov '08 16:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    that we don't know. there used to be a guy named 'jean hebert' here, claiming to be the canadian IM. well, not only did he get banned, but also I emailed the real guy, who hadn't ever even heard about rhp.

    and even if he was who he claimed, it should make absolutely no difference. strong players have cheated before. and wasn't even IM31 a fide arbiter or something like that? sadly, it happens. human nature I guess.
    I totally agree that it doesn't make a difference if he really has an IM title, but I'm 100% sure he is whome we think he is, and that whome we think he is has actually that IM title in CC.
  10. 15 Nov '08 16:54
    Agree it does not matter - if a strong player is caught then he goes.

    Just have to be bit careful. A good player will have a high match in an
    easy game to play - that's why 20 or so games must be used.

    So the abnormal match up's must be looked at by strong players to
    judge quality of game.

    I'm fed up with all this now - I'm off to look at the Olympiad games.
    I'm meant to be doing a daily column on them.
  11. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    15 Nov '08 18:05
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    'find player' instead of 'player tables' for all inactive players.


    1451 games.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    15 Nov '08 18:11 / 2 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Over 400 is "relatively few"? This player was banned as an obvious cheat when he had played less than a 100 games: http://www.timeforchess.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=400793

    This player was recently banned after playing about 150: http://www.timeforchess.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=241455

    Numerous examples could be added.

    The "person" in question is playing few games here NOW; his game load has been significantly higher at other times. He also plays at a number of other sites as well.
  13. 15 Nov '08 18:17
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    As long as this kind of stuff is done in private, only a very select few will know. That's the downside to doing things "behind closed doors".
  14. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    15 Nov '08 18:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Over 400 is "relatively few"? This player was banned as an obvious cheat when he had played less than a 100 games: http://www.timeforchess.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=400793

    This player was recently banned after playing about 150: http://www.timeforchess.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=241455

    Numerous examples could b been significantly higher at other times. He also plays at a number of other sites as well.
    Depends - if User 400793 - was using all first choice engine moves it's going to be easier.

    The thing I find alarming is that people seem to be guessing at when you have statistical significance. I've been thinking about how to get round that. There is a tool used to write systematic reviews of medical trials which is basically designed for this type of problem (Called RevMan 5.0). If you treat each game as a single RCT and then feed them in one at a time it should be possible to get proper confidence intervals and so forth. The problem is it isn't the most user friendly piece of kit (definitely for expert users) and it will take me a while to get my head round. (I sometimes work in Scientific Editing so most of my stats knowledge is "knowing what it means", rather than actually "knowing how to do it" ). What I hope is that it will provide an objective standard of proof - rather than a guess based on "after this many games he must be an engine".

    For clarity - what I am after is a clear method, with a known standard of proof, so that when someone is banned or not banned we all know why.

    Edit " ---> " )
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    15 Nov '08 18:49
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Depends - if User 400793 - was using all first choice engine moves it's going to be easier.

    The thing I find alarming is that people seem to be guessing at when you have statistical significance. I've been thinking about how to get round that. There is a tool used to write systematic reviews of medical trials which is basically designed for th ...[text shortened]... of, so that when someone is banned or not banned we all know why.

    Edit " ---> " )
    He wasn't. His match ups were about the same as the "person" in question here (maybe a little lower).