- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZygalskiMost people over 2100 use engines? I made it to 2070 and I'm not even that good. Every 2100 rated player I have played seemed human, I can usually give them an OK game. Engines are at least 2250+.
This thread isn't ruined, it's just that you need to take into account that most people who have been rated over 2100 or so on this site have most probably used an engine.
I don't think engine use is nearly as rampant as you think.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZygalskiWhy not give the guy a break? If he was cheating in the past, he seems to have changed his ways now. Forgive and move on.
Well you've hardly played at all in the last few years.
2007-2009 seems to be your most active period when often multiple games finished on the same day. Anyone can easily see that by looking at you graph history.
Anyway, are you the same guy who got banned on chess.com for engine use?
11 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KnightStalker47I don't think engine use is nearly as rampant as you think.
Most people over 2100 use engines? I made it to 2070 and I'm not even that good. Every 2100 rated player I have played seemed human, I can usually give them an OK game. Engines are at least 2250+.
I don't think engine use is nearly as rampant as you think.
I'd like to share your optimism, but a quick glance at the link Zygalski gave showing the list of banned players over at chess.com is huge!!! I don't see why players behaviour on this site should be any different.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobA large number of those on the list are multiples rather than engine users, although I suppose they could be multiple account engine users. They were banned for multiple accounts then made new accounts that were then banned etc. That is one of the two reasons I was given for the Kepler account over there being closed. I was supposedly another person as well. Strangely, that person had stopped playing there before I started and the account was closed quite some time before my account was closed. The other reason I was given was fallout from an ongoing series of squabbles between two of the more vociferous ladies on chess.com. A lot of accounts were banned at the same time for supporting the "wrong" side of the squabble. I have to say that doesn't seem like cheating but who can say? Neither of those reasons are official, just what I was told. Whatever the reason, I have another account on chess.com (apparently they couldn't resurrect my old account) although I don't use it much now. Before anyone asks, no, I am not going to tell you who I am over there.
[b]I don't think engine use is nearly as rampant as you think.
I'd like to share your optimism, but a quick glance at the link Zygalski gave showing the list of banned players over at chess.com is huge!!! I don't see why players behaviour on this site should be any different.[/b]
11 Mar 13
1 edit
I can view your chess.com games archive
http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive?member=kepler&page=1
& you were rated 2492 for instance when you played this game:
A rating of 2492 now would put you on page 2 of the rating tables.
I accept that you cannot draw direct comparisons between ratings from then & now because chess.com booted hundreds of known engine users in a massive purge in August 2011.
Here is the staggering live banned cheaters page:
http://www.chess.com/cheating
I dread to think what the situation is like here, since engine use is tacitly allowed.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZygalskiI don't claim anything. I just repeat what I was told. As I said, those aren't official reasons but what I was told after the fact. You may draw whatever conclusions you like.
A maximum chess.com rating well inside the top 10th of the first percentile highest rated & you claim you were banned for something other than engine use?
Once a liar....
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by ZygalskiYou can't draw any kind of comparison between the ratings because back then there was an error in the rating code. A misplaced decimal point as I recall from a forum thread on the topic. It had the effect of inflating ratings at the top end for some reason leading to people with ratings over 3000. As far as I recall that was corrected after my demise and resurrection. I did feel that ratings were a little weird at the time but it is useless to compare ratings between sites or organisations.
I can view your chess.com games archive
http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive?member=kepler&page=1
& you were rated 2492 for instance when you played this game:
[pgn][Event "World Peace"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2009.06.13"]
[White "jycee04"]
[Black "Kepler"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2247"]
[BlackElo "2492"]
[TimeControl "1 in 3 days"]
[Ter ...[text shortened]... think what the situation is like here, since engine use is tacitly allowed.
You can view my old games here as well. Do your thing and get me booted if that is your wish. Just squawking at me on this forum will get you very little.
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ZygalskiThis page on chess.com seems to be clear that Kepler was banned for cheating, not for any other reason:
A maximum chess.com rating well inside the top 10th of the first percentile highest rated & you claim you were banned for something other than engine use?
Once a liar....
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters
No real surprise I suppose. It actually made be quite jealous - how many people do you think have been kicked off RHP in the last two years for cheating? My guess would be zero.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe statistics do not lie. But then, they don't always tell the whole truth either. The cheats seem to be falling like flies over there.. but they're boasting in excess of 6 million users.. whereas poor little RHP only has 400,000. But, possibly more interesting.. is that RHP only has around 14,500 active users. In 2008 that number was 19000. On the bright side.. when that number gets down to 30 I'll be a page 1 player. I got all this from the wayback machine.
[b]I don't think engine use is nearly as rampant as you think.
I'd like to share your optimism, but a quick glance at the link Zygalski gave showing the list of banned players over at chess.com is huge!!! I don't see why players behaviour on this site should be any different.[/b]
2001. satri_tar_1 Rating 1655
2002. Sintubin Rating 1923
I think the above are pre-launch
2003. David Tebb Rating 2095 Users 1983
2004. Akizy Rating 2211 Users 3851
2005. Ironman31 Rating 2478 Users 8012
2006. Akizy Rating 2449 Users 12777
2007. Akizy Rating 2456 Users 18500
2008. Akizy Rating 2455 Users 19041
2009. Weyerstrass Rating 2452 Users 18840
2010. Weyerstrass Rating 2441 Users 17970
2011. Skeeter Rating 2397 Users 16620
2012. Cohonas Rating 2449 Users 15300
2013. Chucker Rating 2467 Users 14490