Cludi Deciding to Leave

This is way too extensive. I mean, you guys are making this extremely dramatic! This user's departure was on his own. He needs no help leaving and needs no help to return. Making a conversation out of this is strongly unimportant.

You appear to be uninformed.

I hate to interrupt and create dissention among the ranks but I consulted a few PH.D's regarding the statistical rosetta stone the a certain player created and is used as damning evidence of cheating here at this site. Of these several scholarly individuals at several Uni's their agreement is this: The writing of such a program is trivial. Their contention is: it would take YEARS to input the CC grouping asserted to here: Berliner to present as a control model. It would take years and a mass mean of probability of less to even 80% to prove one player was a computer engine user. Sorry to burst a few bubbles.

Years to generate a database that already exists?! i will have to disagree with that, it just does not make any sense. 😳

Your post is just unverified and worthless speculation.

Originally posted by TrickyChess
I hate to interrupt and create dissention among the ranks but I consulted a few PH.D's regarding the statistical rosetta stone the a certain player created and is used as damning evidence of cheating here at this site. Of these several scholarly individuals at several Uni's their agreement is this: The writing of such a program is trivial. Their contenti ...[text shortened]... less to even 80% to prove one player was a computer engine user. Sorry to burst a few bubbles.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire


As a game mod cludi would know how games were chosen, he would also know the criteria that needed to be looked at to determine if a player was cheating (i.e. he would know what constitutes "engine moves" ). Knowing this he would be able to avoid the situation.

Consequently he should not have been suspected let alone "caught".

Another thing here is that if David Tebb becomes part of the Game Moderation team - will Cludi even get a fair trial? The investigation concerned is incomplete and will presumably be finished by the new team. A team that may involve his prime accuser.

I mean no disrespect to Mr Tebb but if I were the subject of the investigation, I wouldn't want him being part of it as he's already decided I'm guilty!

Originally posted by TrickyChess
I hate to interrupt and create dissention among the ranks but I consulted a few PH.D's regarding the statistical rosetta stone the a certain player created and is used as damning evidence of cheating here at this site. Of these several scholarly individuals at several Uni's their agreement is this: The writing of such a program is trivial. Their contenti ...[text shortened]... less to even 80% to prove one player was a computer engine user. Sorry to burst a few bubbles.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Need a coffee?

P-

Originally posted by cairn
but what if he was relying on 'being above suspicion' to do his fritzings ?

and then, suppose he is declared 'innocent', and reinstated ( it being the easiest
thing to do ) - -
you almost reach the point where it's alright to use an engine - just don't get found out

.. and then, i suppose one of the big selling-points of the next version of fritz
will be it's ' avoid detection' mode

Well what Tricky chess said is absoultely valid. I happen to know a PH.D in mayhematical algorithms and what TC says is almost exactly what this professor said. The probablity of what the site is claiming is stasitcally far fetched. That it would take a very long time to prove up to 80-85 % any probability of cheating. Anyone else here have one of those degrees?

Originally posted by Very Rusty
If you had been following threads over the past year, you would know the 2000+ players are usually under suspicion... Which is a shame, but that is kind of the way things seem to be.
I am happy I am a "C" player on here, it is way better than being suspected of engine use, just because you have a high rating. There are some of course who are beyond suspicion to the majority !!

Originally posted by Katonah
Well what Tricky chess said is absoultely valid. I happen to know a PH.D in mayhematical algorithms and what TC says is almost exactly what this professor said. The probablity of what the site is claiming is stasitcally far fetched. That it would take a very long time to prove up to 80-85 % any probability of cheating. Anyone else here have one of those degrees?

Originally posted by Very Rusty
If you had been following threads over the past year, you would know the 2000+ players are usually under suspicion... Which is a shame, but that is kind of the way things seem to be.
I am happy I am a "C" player on here, it is way better than being suspected of engine use, just because you have a high rating. There are some of course who are beyond suspicion to the majority !!