1. Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    04 Jul '07 21:53
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    likewise.
  2. London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    04 Jul '07 21:53
    It is also strange that no evidence of cheating is shown.
    Surely all the evidence is in the games.
  3. London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    04 Jul '07 22:05
    It doesn't even prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. All statistical analysis can do is provide evidence at a certain level of confidence (which needs to be stated) for a particular hypothesis.
    And when the level of confidence can be accurately described as being "beyond reasonable doubt" the player is banned. Simple.
  4. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    04 Jul '07 22:11
    Originally posted by Mahout
    And when the level of confidence can be accurately described as being "beyond reasonable doubt" the player is banned. Simple.
    Exactly, and no one needs to justify it. This is not a court of law, it is a business and the proprietors can allow or disallow use of the facilities as and when they please.
  5. Joined
    22 Aug '05
    Moves
    26450
    04 Jul '07 22:181 edit
    Originally posted by lepomis
    He is also found here. http://www.correspondencechess.com/marconi/can.ger.htm

    and many other sites... if that is his real name.
    They should start an online chess site association so that if a cheater is banned from one site, the information is passed on to all member sites who can then also ban them. Right now, cheats get banned and simply move to another site and continue.

    This idea would mean that all the other sites would have to investigate their own suspects too as part of the joining conditions. Which is one thing that they appear not to do at some sites.
  6. London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    04 Jul '07 22:36
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Exactly, and no one needs to justify it. This is not a court of law, it is a business and the proprietors can allow or disallow use of the facilities as and when they please.
    By describing the site as a business do you mean to exclude the possibility that those who own and run the site might do so for reasons other than pure profit. You seem to imply that financial gain is the only motivating factor for the creation and running of this site. Is it not also possible that they are driven by a passion for chess and the technology that makes it all work. Maybe their primary goal is to create the best possible site for the community and they work tirelessly to achieve this with profit being a less important but necessary consideration. And what of the work put in by the unpaid moderators.

    There has to be some process for managing cheats for the benefit of those who wish to enjoy the stated aims of the site but it seems inevitable that not everyone will be happy with how this is achieved.
  7. London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    04 Jul '07 22:41
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    They should start an online chess site association so that if a cheater is banned from one site, the information is passed on to all member sites who can then also ban them. Right now, cheats get banned and simply move to another site and continue.

    This idea would mean that all the other sites would have to investigate their own suspects too as part of the joining conditions. Which is one thing that they appear not to do at some sites.
    But wouldn't that only prevent the cheats who wish to keep the same email and online identity. I don't know if it's possible to stop someone signing up again with a new email and new user name.
  8. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    05 Jul '07 07:51
    Originally posted by Mahout
    By describing the site as a business do you mean to exclude the possibility that those who own and run the site might do so for reasons other than pure profit. You seem to imply that financial gain is the only motivating factor for the creation and running of this site. Is it not also possible that they are driven by a passion for chess and the technology th ...[text shortened]... s of the site but it seems inevitable that not everyone will be happy with how this is achieved.
    I do not exclude any reason for running this site. I worked for many years for a man who ran his business as a non-profit organisation. In the UK this brings tax benefits, no profit means the company does not pay taxes. He also continued to run the business to give himself something to do after his wife had died, in effect it was his social club. This did not in any way change the simple fact that he was not obliged to do business with anyone if he did not want to and he had no need to provide a reason for same.

    I agree that there has to be a means of excluding those seen as detrimental to the site for whatever reason. This site is particularly keen to ensure that certain types of outside assistance are excluded and there is a system in place to do so. All I am saying is that it is pointless (and a lie) to claim 100% accuracy in such a system if based on statistical methods. It is also completely pointless for users of the site to complain about the system used to remove cheats since this is a business whether run wholely or partly for profit or on a non-profit basis. It is also silly to complain about something that I suspect is in large part driven by the continuous paranoia and complaints about engine use.

    Enough, let's get on with playing chess.
  9. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    05 Jul '07 11:35
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Enough, let's get on with playing chess.
    Amen to that brother!!!
  10. Joined
    03 Feb '04
    Moves
    77968
    05 Jul '07 12:40
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    They should start an online chess site association so that if a cheater is banned from one site, the information is passed on to all member sites who can then also ban them. Right now, cheats get banned and simply move to another site and continue.

    This idea would mean that all the other sites would have to investigate their own suspects too as part of the joining conditions. Which is one thing that they appear not to do at some sites.
    I'd love to see an online chess governing body too. If you wanted to run a chess site then you would need to be affiliated to this body. Also, if you wished to play on an online chess site, you would have to be a member of the body too. This ( individual membership ) would require full first and surnames, proof of address and ID. They would then issue you with a unique membership number which you could use to join online sites. You get caught cheating on one, your membership of the governing body is withdrawn and you can never play online again.

    Sound good? Difficult to implement?
  11. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    05 Jul '07 12:48
    Originally posted by saffa73
    Sound good? Difficult to implement?
    Sounds good, yes. Difficult to implement, yes. My one objection to such a thing is that FIDE would want to get control and then things would go bad very quickly.
  12. Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    05 Jul '07 13:21
    Originally posted by saffa73
    I'd love to see an online chess governing body too. If you wanted to run a chess site then you would need to be affiliated to this body. Also, if you wished to play on an online chess site, you would have to be a member of the body too. This ( individual membership ) would require full first and surnames, proof of address and ID. They would then issue you wi ...[text shortened]... body is withdrawn and you can never play online again.

    Sound good? Difficult to implement?
    what an utterly useless idea. the main advantage of playing online is the easiness of it all. you just create a handle and you're set to go. almost nobody would bother to play on such totalitarian sites, when there's far easier choices which don't require you to sign a contract in blood.
  13. Joined
    03 Feb '04
    Moves
    77968
    05 Jul '07 18:44
    Originally posted by wormwood
    what an utterly useless idea. the main advantage of playing online is the easiness of it all. you just create a handle and you're set to go. almost nobody would bother to play on such totalitarian sites, when there's far easier choices which don't require you to sign a contract in blood.
    An utterly useless idea? At least it would minimise the risk of encountering cheats who frequent sites where it's easy to just get a handle and play!!!
  14. Joined
    07 Nov '04
    Moves
    18861
    05 Jul '07 20:56
    Originally posted by Mahout
    And when the level of confidence can be accurately described as being "beyond reasonable doubt" the player is banned. Simple.
    A fair reposte. I think many of us are also grateful for Cludi's very helpful exposition of the issues involved. My only concern would be with on what the statistics were based.
    I'm not at all an expert on chess engines, but I do recall a few years ago having two engines (earlier versions of Fritz and Hiarcs) at my disposal for a while. I was struck by how often, when analysing a position (I used to do quite a lot of opening analysis), the two engines, running on the same hardware, would come up with different moves. I think the two engines were of roughly similar strength, though I had the impression that Fritz was more tactically inclined while Hiarcs had a rather better positional feel, a bit more like a human in some ways.
    I should imagine that positions must often arise (especially complex ones) where different engines could come up with a number of different moves. And of course one has to take into account not just different engines and different versions of the engines but also a lot of other factors such as how long the engine is given to analyse the position, the hardware that the engine is running on, RAM and processing speed, hash tables set, engine 'playing styles' etc.
    I'm sure the moderators take all this into account, but it must make it hellishly complicated and laborious work. Most strong players I've spoken to have an instinctive feel when they're playing against an engine, but such a feel cannot be guaranteed to be always right, and in any case it would very difficult, and I should imagine very controversial, to label anyone a cheat on such a basis alone.
  15. London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    05 Jul '07 21:47
    Originally posted by Northern Lad
    A fair reposte. I think many of us are also grateful for Cludi's very helpful exposition of the issues involved. My only concern would be with on what the statistics were based.
    I'm not at all an expert on chess engines, but I do recall a few years ago having two engines (earlier versions of Fritz and Hiarcs) at my disposal for a while. I was struck b ...[text shortened]... , and I should imagine very controversial, to label anyone a cheat on such a basis alone.
    I have had the same thoughts but with a limited knowledge of engines and at my current level of chess it is over my head - I just assume that the mods have a method they are confident with. It could be that the argument you present is the reason there are cheats who don't get caught - I can't bring myself to spell out the details.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree