confused about engine usage

Originally posted by peacedog
Hmm. 7 out of 24. About 30%. Would you say thats about the %age of 2000+ players who use engines?

ok, 30% then.. I just recall it being quite a percentage..

Originally posted by peacedog
Hmm. 7 out of 24. About 30%. Would you say thats about the %age of 2000+ players who use engines?

probably low.. sad to say.

Originally posted by nimzo5
probably low.. sad to say.

I'll disagree only slightly. I think engine users were a bit more likely to join this particular tournament, as they don't have to worry much about gameload, particularly vs. strong opposition. So the percentage of high-rated folks who should be/have been banned overall is likely a bit lower than the percentage from this tournament who should be/have been banned.

OK. So the "official" process is extremely slow and they only ban players when the evidence is overwhelming. I'm wondering if this implies secretely installing a webcam into the house of the cheater to tape him while using engine assistance 🙂

What about creating unofficial list of suspects? Just to know when accepting a game that these players are maybe GM's or maybe unknown geniuses or maybe Rybkas. I know that it is very hard for one person to analyze many games before selecting opponents. However I wouldn't mind analyzing 2-3 games as part of an collective effort.

Originally posted by cotoi
OK. So the "official" process is extremely slow and they only ban players when the evidence is overwhelming. I'm wondering if this implies secretely installing a webcam into the house of the cheater to tape him while using engine assistance 🙂

What about creating unofficial list of suspects? Just to know when accepting a game that these players are maybe GM ...[text shortened]... ing opponents. However I wouldn't mind analyzing 2-3 games as part of an collective effort.

Can't make a list of suspects, since anyone can be suspect. Sometimes for very stupid reasons... but often with good reason.

There is an active club you might consider joining that watches and waits... but you can't throw names around in public. I forget the name, but ask around if interested in the club that 'watches out' for 'che@s"

P-

Originally posted by cotoi
However I wouldn't mind analyzing 2-3 games as part of an collective effort.

sounds like the vigilantes are coming back... 😉

Shall I understand that you prefer cheaters?

If I pre-screen my opponents alone, 2-3 analyzed games means nothing. However, they could mean something if part of a collective effort.

Originally posted by cotoi
Shall I understand that you prefer cheaters?

If I pre-screen my opponents alone, 2-3 analyzed games means nothing. However, they could mean something if part of a collective effort.

no, I just don't see this being viable... imagine the extra workload for the RHP game mods 'cause obviously they would have to vet those games, too, and (double)check your findings

I'm inclined to think that this link should be removed from "only chess" and moved to another forum such as "general". It is about cheating, not chess, and I see those as different areas.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I'm inclined to think that this link should be removed from "only chess" and moved to another forum such as "general". It is about cheating, not chess, and I see those as different areas.

and GP34's new thread as well? why are people so fussed as to where certain threads (sometimes) end up in.. it's not like you're getting email alerts for every new post in Chess forum 😉

Originally posted by Renars
and GP34's new thread as well? why are people so fussed as to where certain threads end up in.. it's not like you're getting email alerts for every new post in Chess forums 😉

I might be a little OCD...🙄

Originally posted by Renars
no, I just don't see this being viable... imagine the extra workload for the RHP game mods 'cause obviously they would have to vet those games, too, and (double)check your findings

I don't care about the RHP mods, I saw how efficient they are.

All I'm proposing is an unofficial collective effort of minimizing the chances of playing against artificial intelligence. It should have no value except for the very few who believe that achieving 90% top-three matchup with Rybka is not possible unless you are 2700+ ELO. The others (including the game mods) are kindly asked not to pay attention to such actions.

Also, if someone is included on such a list, he should be very proud, not upset. It means that for some players it looks that he plays at the same level as Anand or Carlsen.

Originally posted by cotoi
Also, if someone is included on such a list, he should be very proud, not upset. It means that for some players it looks that he plays at the same level as Anand or Carlsen.

Indeed.

One of the proudest moments of my chess carrer was being accused of cheating in an ICC blitz tourn by a player rated 2000+ I'd just beaten. If he thought that, I must of played a bloody good game:-)