Originally posted by no1marauderDepends - if User 400793 - was using all first choice engine moves it's going to be easier.
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.
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 "😉 ---> " )
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHe wasn't. His match ups were about the same as the "person" in question here (maybe a little lower).
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 "😉 ---> " )
Originally posted by no1marauderSome people don't care how many games you analyse or how high the match-ups are.
He wasn't. His match ups were about the same as the "person" in question here (maybe a little lower).
To them their hero will always be an innocent victim.
I could analyse 400 games in the next year & come back with similar figures from my sample group of 20 games (probably higher match-ups because weaker players will be included) but what will that prove?
***
The thing is as I've mentioned before, this player has been investigated before with many games analysed & always around the same match-ups.
Other players have been banned with similar or slightly lower match-ups.
Where is the consistency?
Use your brains, guys!
I have been reading about cheating on this forum......some players openly state that they use reference books and databases during games. It seems to me that the only difference between books, databases and search-engines is the speed at which the solution is delivered. Surely if you use these outside aids, it becomes a contest between who has the most extensive chess library, not a battle of wits and ingenuity.
Originally posted by acb123Better brace yourself 😉
I have been reading about cheating on this forum......some players openly state that they use reference books and databases during games. It seems to me that the only difference between books, databases and search-engines is the speed at which the solution is delivered. Surely if you use these outside aids, it becomes a contest between who has the most extensive chess library, not a battle of wits and ingenuity.
I've used a book once on this site - I was testing a line in the
Pirc which was giving me trouble (I play the Black side of a Pirc)
so I played the White side following the book's rec.
I was looking for it's drawbacks -seeing if my opponent had
any ideas.
Black deviated first - it lost a pawn - I took the pawn and offered
a draw (the experiment was over) - Black declined draw - I won.
The rest have been memory (the Latvians) or what I would do OTB.
But. Using books and DB's are allowed.
If not - How can you prove someone was using an opening book?
I'd say it was not the person who has the most expensivie library
who has an advantage.
It was the person who had the most up to date library.
But that said - I've played over 100's of games on this site.
Games tend to leave book early doors - especially under 1600 level.
And most games are not decided by craft and guile but it's because
some unlucky guy blunders a piece in an even position.
(or walks into a 2 move trap set by the likes of players like me).
Databases: Pointless and very risky.
You have no idea why you are making the move - at least a book,
a good book, should explain why you are making such a move.
Your understanding of the opening should become better.
That what you do with an opening - undertand it - know the spirit of the opening.
Good question though.
Originally posted by greenpawn34It's all about "sample size" mr greenpawn, deal with it..
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 pla who have
been banned on lesser evidence.
Glad I'm not the one making the decision.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodbut i like the idea of a world class player doing this, i also feel like i've been led down the garden path.
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.