Originally posted by RahimKI said that didn't I?
Ugg.. going on and on and on.
I'm going to give in a bit on my stance on this subject althought I don't like the idea personally. I wouldn't mind an optional checkbox for db usage. However, It should say,
"If you do NOT use a db, check this off"
1 more thing. Put this to a vote, but I doubt it will go through.
Originally posted by RavelloWho thinks it's "cheating"? Not me.
In other chess sites there's no box to check to indicate database use,why this site should be different?
Only because there's a bunch of sorryasses who think DB use is "cheating"?
In fact I've said several times the opposite.
This is the same reply over and over.
Originally posted by RavelloI don't think it is cheating.
In other chess sites there's no box to check to indicate database use,why this site should be different?
Only because there's a bunch of sorryasses who think DB use is "cheating"?
I do think it is a significant advantage.
1) the thread is called "cheating" and you guys are speaking of databases 😞
2)I agree that there are the same replies over and over,care to guess why?
3)The TOS already speaks about allowing books and DB.
4) this thread has no point and should die because books and databases are allowed in all correspondence chess sites,so it simply makes no sense arguing if we should have it said in profiles or check a box when you register.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI thought you said that if you USE a db then check it off. That make more work for us.
I said that didn't I?
I'm saying if you DON't use a db then check the box. Therefore, more work for you guys.
And so we against this thread don't have to suffer in anyway.
I doubt it would happen but I would go for it if it did happen.
Originally posted by RahimKPage 8;
I thought you said that if you USE a db then check it off. That make more work for us.
I'm saying if you DON't use a db then check the box.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
..it could be made possible for people to state that they are NOT using them couldn't it?
So yeah, that would harm nobody, right?
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveSorry I must have miss read. Ya, I'm okay with it then.
Page 8;
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
[b]..it could be made possible for people to state that they are NOT using them couldn't it?
So yeah, that would harm nobody, right?[/b]
Strangely enough, Most of the opponents I have played don't use db. I ask most of them during the game when we chit chat.
"So how's the weather?" Ya we got snow down here. O, do you use a db by any chance?
You gotta be very subtle, hehe jj
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThe analogy fits. 😉
or comparing it to flipping pole vaultin' geesh.
3. YOUR PARTICIPATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your entrance to the competition, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from taking part under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not enter a competition more than once.
(b) You will not use engine powered vehicles, spring-loaded shoes, magnets or get any third party to assist you in any jump. Pole vaults and running shoes can be used during play
(c) You may not threaten or harass other competitors.
D
The use of the checkbox would imply that it would have to be enforced. This will also be impractical and therefore render the checkbox pointless.
For example, someone could indicate that they don't use a db and one move they use one. Does that player have to tick it, look up the db, make the move then untick it again?
In this scenario, to make more sense, the user would have to specify which moves used a database and which weren't. This would also be impractical.
Also, considering that correspondance rules allow for db use. A user that specifies that they don't use a db but actually uses one would technically not be cheating. Hence also would render the tickbox pointless.
I'm against this idea also, but i'm suprised the people defending this thread didn't bring this up.
Some of you have mentioned the headgear for boxers/wrestler? and pole for pole vault as examples. These examples are not valid because once the athlete competes in the event you can tell that he is using headgear of a pole.
However, if someone is using a db, you still don't know if he is using a db.
Boo Ya
Drstrange...... should thank me for this.
Your welcome.
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookI would go further, BlueEyed. And, how I would go further is to say that - most likely - intermittent cheating is not hard to find on the internet. For instance, a good scenario is someone on RHP who does not cheat at all - not even use opening books or outside sources (literature) - but thereby considers it "okay" to be an intermittent cheater. FOr instance, they only use a computer in one game in a tournament of importance for instance. I believe this has happened to me, but I cannot be sure. So, how can one prove it? They get away with it, plain and simple. But, intermittent cheaters... I bet if you took a statistic, you'd be astonished. Unlike intermittent cheaters and all other cheaters in general, I - myself - have NEVER cheated, used outside sources, not even used computers... and look at my rating. That's an accomplishment considering everyone who is using all of those things. Also, I move all my moves (20+ games) in 30 minutes of sit time in the library every day. Sometimes, I make stupid errors. If only I played all my games like an OTB tourney. Think of what my rating would be? At least 200 points more or beyond.
I got into an interesting debate about online chess cheating the other day. The key issue was whether a person could consult an opening book while playing a game. I was shocked how people had so many different opinions on the issue and cheating in general.
On that note, I wanted to conduct a brief survey on what type of behaviors people think are "cheating."
http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/