25 Aug '11 20:11>
I wonder what Russ thinks of that business model have they banned even 130 since RHP started?
Originally posted by vzografosEven 2000+ rated will tend to adopt plans much different from an engine...they will beat you with human ideas, positional ideas etc. In highly tactical situations, they may match an engine if they are playing accurately. But in quiet positions they will play much differently.
Most 2000+ ELO people will have a high agreement with an engine. So, how low ELO must you have to qualify for a non-cheater? Another threshold there.
Originally posted by vzografosChessworld.net basically has an honor system, and honestly they don't seem to have any problem at all with cheating. I have been playing there as well for a few years now and I have never run into somebody I suspected of engine use. Honor is important and people seem to value their word as a player. Of course, ratings are also not quite as much of a focus, so maybe that makes a difference, and could give people more incentive to cheat.
Should the chess sites have such tight grip on user behaviour? And I am not talking anti-social behaviour in forums, but unethical behaviour during games.
How do you prove that someone has cheated? Agreement with a chess engine? Then it is just a matter of threshold. What is a high percentage of agreement?
Most 2000+ ELO people will have a high agreement with an engine.
I say live and let live.
Originally posted by greenpawn34due to the recent bannings on chess.com, I'm contemplating starting to play there again. I really hated how they spammed my email account even after numerous contacts, but at least they're banning cheaters.
It could have been a gang setting up muliple accounts to play
each other and boost one players grade.
I don't go there, checked the games against the names.
Are they playing each other?