I've been doing some more reading on old threads that have words found by search as "Engine" "Cheating" "Matchup". There are alot of old threads. I haven't read them all, but they all seem to have similar undertones. So I thought to myself what can be done to defend against this?
It actually seems rather simple to me. Why don't we make an article which lists only fair players. Rather than trying to find the cheats, lets only search for the legitimates! When we find a legitimate player, we simply add him to the list! Maybe over time the list will evolve into a club or something (who knows) but it seems to me like a better controlled playing field.
I'll start:
Paul Leggett User 525471
Q
Originally posted by PhySiQthis too has been tried many times. there are probably several clans & clubs even now that were founded based on this exact idea. not that many people ever sign up.
I've been doing some more reading on old threads that have words found by search as "Engine" "Cheating" "Matchup". There are alot of old threads. I haven't read them all, but they all seem to have similar undertones. So I thought to myself what can be done to defend against this?
It actually seems rather simple to me. Why don't we make an article whic ...[text shortened]... better controlled playing field.
I'll start:
Paul Leggett User 525471
Q
Originally posted by gambit05true, and we've already seen a fair amount of cheaters who were more than willing to loudly fake 'righteous indignation' over cheating. so it would always be the case of "okay, so someone says he's clean, but do I trust THAT person over his assessment or even integrity?"
Nice idea, but there is a caveat. Once somebody has made it to the list, s/he might start cheating afterwards. Hundreds of fairly played games do not guarantee that the next one is clean.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I have been accused a fair share of times myself. In the absence of complete information, it is easy to speculate and fill in missing facts with speculation about malfeasance.
Sometimes it even made sense to me that someone would think that-here's a position from a game that illustrates the point:
In this position I was black, and I finally had to admit it was a draw.
I was using GM Glenn Flear's Practical Endgame Play-Beyond the basics as my guide. In his chapter on rook vs two minor pieces, he used a database of 25000 games of players rated 2600 and above.
In that sample, the "rook" side never won, drew 10 games, and lost 22 (page 194). With that in mind, I played on even after my opponent offered multiple draws, in the vain hope that I would find the correct continuation.
Eventually I determined the drawing plan for white. He intends to trade his rook for my knight. His bishop is the wrong color to promote an h-pawn, so black pawn breaks would be in vain. White's king is safe in the corner, and black has no way to make progress.
This is one of those situations where a player could easily think that i had played on because an engine would show a plus for black based on material and king position, but I was just going on Glenn Flear's notes, and it took me a while to determine that this was in the draw column and not the win column.
Even then, it was a valuable learning experience for me, as this is the kind of position that could occur OTB, and I now have much better understanding of how to play it, compared to where I was before the game.
I know Greenpawn34 dogs me all the time about endings, but I really believe this format is great for learning endgames, and it has definitely helped my OTB game.
1 edit
Originally posted by gambit05So the list would need delicate pruning it sounds like. Mr. Wormwood, what groups exist that do this?
Nice idea, but there is a caveat. Once somebody has made it to the list, s/he might start cheating afterwards. Hundreds of fairly played games do not guarantee that the next one is clean.
As for you Mr. Leggett - I probably would have been called a cheat. I certainly would have tested whites technique here. Although if the defender seemed cognizant of the position I would have been forced as you were to eventually accept the position as drawn.
Q
Originally posted by PhySiQLet's start with you.
So the list would need delicate pruning it sounds like. Mr. Wormwood, what groups exist that do this?
As for you Mr. Leggett - I probably would have been called a cheat. I certainly would have tested whites technique here. Although if the defender seemed cognizant of the position I would have been forced as you were to eventually accept the position as drawn.
Q
You have made a very impressive thread with Thread 143885. But to be honest, even a cheat can do that. You could be
a) a strong genuine player
b) a "Returner" maybe like Cludi, who had some genuine impact on this site, until the dark site catched him, or
c) somebody else, strong chess player or just fake. Who knows?
1 edit
Originally posted by gambit05Fair enough. So then where does this assessment leave us? It would seem I'm not deserving of the trusted list. Not until players who are already on it can appoint me there. So perhaps to begin a group of known legitimate players by the larger demographic need to be selected as representatives for appointment to the list. From there players can be added by these representatives.
Let's start with you.
You have made a very impressive thread with Thread 143885. But to be honest, even a cheat can do that. You could be
a) a strong genuine player
b) a "Returner" maybe like Cludi, who had some genuine impact on this site, until the dark site catched him, or
c) somebody else, strong chess player or just fake. Who knows?
I put in my .02 for Mr. Leggett. I would think that greenpawn34 would also be a good nomination. The fact is that we have to start with trust somewhere, of someone. All this talk of cheating on this website has me thinking that not subscribing was a good decision - furthermore that I may need to find a venue which plays in real time...where cheating seems less likely.
I haven't personally been burned yet. The conversations here make it sound as though its just a matter of time. And thanks for the flattery...but I'm certainly not a "strong" player.
Q
Originally posted by PhySiQNo, maybe some of the page 1 people disagree, but my own experience is that if you watch carefully enough, less than 10% of the opponents are actually cheaters.
Fair enough. So then where does this assessment leave us? It would seem I'm not deserving of the trusted list. Not until players who are already on it can appoint me there. So perhaps to begin a group of known legitimate players by the larger demographic need to be selected as representatives for appointment to the list. From there players can be added b ...[text shortened]... ed yet. The conversations here though make it sound as though its just a matter of time.
Q
Originally posted by PhySiQOutright Clean List leader
True enough. Thaughbaer - I nominate you to be the leader of the betting league. You sir, are now the bookie.
Q
Leggett 6-4
Chandler Evens
PhySiQ 3-1
thaughbaer 33-1
100-1 bar
Spot Bets
PhySiQ versus thaughbaer first piece taken
White pawn 6-4 on
Black pawn Evens
White whit e bishop 2-1
Black white bishop 3-1
White black bishop 3-1
Black black bishop 4-1
STOP PRESS: PhySiQ arrested in spot betting scandal
This is not such a good idea. It is making out everyone not on the list
is a cheat and I know for sure that the all the lads who supply my fodder
for the blog do not cheat. Nor do the majority of them post in or read the forums
so because they are 'unknown' they get labelled.
My idea a few years back that once a player reaches 2200 they must reveal
their true identity to the Mods sounded OK until a few flaws were pointed out.
If you think someone is at it raise an FTP. or simply never play them.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20250
Originally posted by greenpawn34You can indeed only make a list of cheaters, instead of a list of honest players. However, such a list cannot be shared within the forum, because you'll get banned. Does this also hold for the private forums like clubs and clans?
This is not such a good idea. It is making out everyone not on the list
is a cheat and I know for sure that the all the lads who supply my fodder
for the blog do not cheat. Nor do the majority of them post in or read the forums
so because they are 'unknown' they get labelled.
My idea a few years back that once a player reaches 2200 they must reve ...[text shortened]... ws were pointed out.
If you think someone is at it raise an FTP. or simply never play them.
I have the name "Cheaters' list" in my head, as a parody to the film "Schindlers' list" 😉