Originally posted by thrajin0 moves, joined a few moments ago, and already posting strong opinions.
How does duchess64's gender have anything to do with this discussion? Can't you make an argument without resorting to what is basically name calling and gender bias?
Anyway, the point of her argument, that it seems unfair that games against cheating opponents are not counted when the person not cheating has a drawn or winning position, seems at least reas ...[text shortened]... an individual who is able to draw or win despite the use of a chess engine by their opponent.
what a coincidence.
Duchess64, here's my opinion on your idea about how to handle adjudicated games of players that have recently been banned.
If there was an obvious theoretical draw or a win, it would be great to be able to claim it. However, would it work the other way as well? If there was an obvious loss, should points be deducted from a player who loses to an engine? I would hope not. My guess is 99.9% of people who play here are going to regularly lose to an engine. Allowing theoretical losses would only cause people to lose rating points. Disqualifying the game altogether seems to combat this. Allowing someone to claim a draw or a win against an engine-user would only be applicable to a very select few it seems. This may slightly inflate the ratings of the top players. Your solution could work two ways it seems to me:
1.) We allow theoretical losses to count as a loss and the player losing to an engine loses rating points.
2.) We forbid theoretical losses to an engine.
If option 1 were taken, you would probably have a lot of unhappy lowbies (such as myself). We would continuously lose to these engines, which may cause strife around the site. One could hope that the engine-user were caught before the game progressed too far, but this would not often be the case. Furthermore, it would be highly unfair to the top rated players on this site to lose points to an engine, affecting their overall ranking if the engine-user were caught before the game was finished. It seems unfair to have to count a loss against an engine for anyone. In that case, this does not seem to work out well.
If option 2 were taken, then nobody would lose to an engine and everyone would be happy. However, the top rated players would occasionally beat these engines, whereas lowbies would not. This seems as though it would inflate the ratings of those capable of beating engines if losses against engines do not count against them. The solution to this seems to lead us back to option 1, which according to my analysis of the situation does not seem too pragmatic.
I am sorry if I missed something. Please let me know what you think.
Originally posted by wormwoodI have spoken with duchess64 through other media, but she and I are not the same individual.
0 moves, joined a few moments ago, and already posting strong opinions.
what a coincidence.
However, I freely admit that I have posted here, in part, to show my support for her ideas and to fend off the wolves, so to speak. The many attacks she has received are difficult to defend against alone, and to be quite honest, she was undeserving of such hostile treatment.
The fact of the matter is that an individual who was a victim of chess-cheating was voicing her opinion on the matter, and instead of people criticizing her ideas, many apparently attacked her character (and gender).
Originally posted by wormwoodAhhh. Finally the silent masses, of whom Duchess64 so often speaks, are finally making their voices heard. Hurrah! Its the calvary riding over the crest of the hill, sunrise at their backs to save the day!
0 moves, joined a few moments ago, and already posting strong opinions.
what a coincidence.
Sorry, mistaken. Just another long winded and overly generalized comment sucking up electrons on my network.
This scenario has never been played out in the movies. Nothing like Napoleon Dynamite's 'old girlfriend from Oklahoma' or Good Morning Vietnam's 'silent masses'. You know, polkas ARE a much-maligned musical form
😵😵😵
- Joined
- 16 Dec 04
- Moves
- 56692
Originally posted by amolv06It doesn't help when new members come across as spiky as Duchess has. Someone disgreed with her/his analysis of a chess position and Duchess resorted to bringing someone's chracter into question, which had nothing to do with what was being discussed. A simple reasoning behind why it was a drawn game would have sufficed, it is a chess forum afterall.
Why all the hostility to the new members? I don't get it. I would figure we'd want more members. The hostility seems to be a bit of a turn-off, though. Most people are very polite in-game. Why is that not carried to the forums as well?
FWIW I'm rather enjoying Duchess' writing style, and her/his indirect replies to previous posters. Tres amusant.
The post that was quoted here has been removedhttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=97792
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=97605
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95046
1....2....3.... how d'ya like them apples. It's soooo important to be factually correct... or to be able to count.... one or t'other. Ah wait.. maybe you're gonna get me on the definition of 'recently' now... it's very exciting... waiting for the next installment... like when a new Harry Potter novel comes out... although I have to say your forum posts are more like War and Peace.
