Originally posted by DanTriola Seems a bit obsessive to me, to put so much time and energy into a sham.
where as playing chess without cheating stops wars, feeds the poor and develops the ability to fly and shoot lasers from your eyes. totally worth the time we put in before passing over into the great unknown. and is not obsessive at all. 🙂
I waste a lot of time to pointless activities, but I try to waste as little time as possible to cheaters. they don't deserve my time.
I was referring to the imposture, not the game of chess.
I hope you were not being "ironic", as otherwise your last post was a misinterpretation of my intention.
I make no claims in respect of this tourney, but if GMNottherealdeal is exposed, I'm sure that the other players
will welcome a ban tout court. What a waste of our time
and energy this has been...
😠[/b]
first i would like to comment that I hate cheaters. every site has them and at least rhp is doing something about it.
in response to the above quote i would like to say dont be so down. It was a waste of your time indeed. but imagine how much time the cheater(s) are wasting on beating legit players! the fool is the one who cheats not you or the players involved.
Originally posted by atticus2 A number of us in RHP have been interested to observe the rise of GM Norblackheart to the giddy heights of the leader board with a close-to-perfect game score, and a rating of 2365 currently. This player has informed a number of us, myself included, that the explanation for his performance is simple: he claims to be a real GM. Indeed he claims to be the Nor ...[text shortened]... near-faultless climb up the leader board.
ps. I informed site Admin of this news last night.
Good stuff Atticus2. I guess you've caught the impostor with his hand in the cookie jar.
Originally posted by DanTriola I was referring to the imposture, not the game of chess.
I hope you were not being "ironic", as otherwise your last post was a misinterpretation of my intention.
Bill, time is better spent with subs. The ones who gets a free ride is not worth talking to at the expense of subs who pays to support this site. On the other hand, this doesn't mean to ignore the non-subs who's trying to get the feel of the site who may sign up at a later time. I only meant the ones who's been here long enough but won't pony up a small fee to support Russ' efforts to improve this site. There are people like that you know. ---Carl
Originally posted by blackjack21 I only meant the ones who's been here long enough but won't pony up a small fee to support Russ' efforts to improve this site. There are people like that you know. ---Carl
I speak only for myself. I consider 4 chess sites: ICC, playchess, chess.com and RHP. I care about the number of users (how easy is to play a blitz game) and I care that the number of cheaters is reasonable. The site with the highest score gets my subscription. Until now the winner was ICC. If RHP wants to compete with it, then the cheaters should be banned MUCH faster than 5 years, which is the time Weyerstrass was allowed to "play".
I don't want to "support" any efforts. I want to buy something and I try to spend my money wisely. If I buy a tool which doesn't work, I don't keep it to support the manufacturer. I return it and I make sure that in the future I avoid that mark.
The sad thing is that the player in question is now sitting on the third rung of the player tables, and to be honest I don't expect to see him going anywhere for at least another month. ðŸ˜
It was difficult with Weyerstrass, he was a known C.C. IM.
(not, apparently, like this joker Norblackheart who should be gone pretty soon).
As I said in a previous thread banning big Ron was unprecidented.
They had not used the match up system to catch and ban anyone of
this calibre before.
Ronald Weyerstrass is a Dutch chess player. He is an ICCF master.
In 1990 he became CC champion of the Netherlands. Ronald also played in the
15th world championship CC and finished sixth.
Has was a national CC Champion, World title contender ever been banned
before using the match up system?
And this was the dilemma facing the powers that be here.
It was an unique case, not your unknown poser, but a genuine very good chess player.
Originally posted by cotoi I speak only for myself. I consider 4 chess sites: ICC, playchess, chess.com and RHP. I care about the number of users (how easy is to play a blitz game) and I care that the number of cheaters is reasonable. The site with the highest score gets my subscription. Until now the winner was ICC. If RHP wants to compete with it, then the cheaters should be banned MU ...[text shortened]... pport the manufacturer. I return it and I make sure that in the future I avoid that mark.
Cotoi,
Your point well taken. And GP's comments is right on. The mods wants to ensure 100% before they act on banning players. But we have a few turnover of mods the past several years. Politics come into play too. Perhaps more often than not. There have been legit players who have been banned and some known engine users who gets away with it for years. We need to have mods that are truly impartial who's not afraid to ban players they know.
It was difficult with Weyerstrass, he was a known C.C. IM.
(not, apparently, like this joker Norblackheart who should be gone pretty soon).
As I said in a previous thread banning big Ron was unprecidented.
They had not used the match up system to catch and ban anyone of
this calibre before.
Ronald Weyerstrass is a Dutch chess player. ...[text shortened]... be here.
It was an unique case, not your unknown poser, but a genuine very good chess player.
With all due respect:
I and others had analyzed Weyerstrass' games in 2005 and the results were absolutely conclusive that he was an engine user. As part of this analysis, I had analyzed some of his correspondence games around 1990; they showed a matchup rate some 30% lower than his games at RHP. All of this was duly reported to the Game Mods who were aware of these facts. From the info I have, most, if not all, of the Game Mods have believed for years that Weyerstrass should have been banned from RHP. The decision not to ban him for so long was a "political" one by the Site Admins, but it cannot be reasonably asserted that there was any doubt that the account Weyerstrass on RHP was an engine cheat and had been from Day 1.
Greenpawn,
Do not know if this has been posted before. Pertains to Weyerstrass, not to the impostor AKA GM Norblackheart.
The articles published by Alex Dunne in May and June 2008 in his USCF column, "The Check is in the Mail" may be of interest: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7527/397/ You need not be a member to read them. Anthony Kain's piece is on pg 4 of the May edition, and the comments from several high-level CC players can be found on pg 5 of the June issue.
Originally posted by no1marauder With all due respect:
I and others had analyzed Weyerstrass' games in 2005 and the results were absolutely conclusive that he was an engine user. As part of this analysis, I had analyzed some of his correspondence games around 1990; they showed a matchup rate some 30% lower than his games at RHP. All of this was duly reported to the ...[text shortened]... as any doubt that the account Weyerstrass on RHP was an engine cheat and had been from Day 1.
No1,
Being an American, I know you "must" be familiar with this quote from Mark Twain:
"There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies, and statistics".
I've been in the sciences all my life, and in medicine for the last 40. I can tell everyone this one fact: Statistical proofs are easily arranged, but do not stake your life on them. There are no certainties with statistics. One can "prove" just about anything with statistics, given a free range of adjusted variables.
Originally posted by DanTriola No1,
Being an American, I know you "must" be familiar with this quote from Mark Twain:
"There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies, and statistics".
I've been in the sciences all my life, and in medicine for the last 40. I can tell everyone this one fact: Statistical proofs are easily arranged, but do not stake your life on them. There are no certa ...[text shortened]... n "prove" just about anything with statistics, given a free range of adjusted variables.
BS. I've been hearing such rationalizations on this site for 5 years. While I do not rely solely on matchup rates, at some point it's completely fair to say that an extraordinarily high matchup rate in game after game is about as conclusive evidence as one can get in this life. If you want to criticize the use of stats in this case, I suggest you come up with a reasoned critique of their supposed deficiencies in these matters rather than relying on joke lines from an author dead for about a 100 years.
05 Feb '11 18:23
GM Norblackheart - some news!
Back to Top