Originally posted by Dragon FireThat is a question for the admins to answer or decide since there is nothing about this in the TOS.
Should not these "victories" be defaulted retrospectively to the losing side and the scores adjusted.
If both sides have cheated it should be scored a draw.
But I have checked GauravV's statistics for our Clan and to be honoust they are not impressive.
Total Clangames for S.P.S. : 38 games.
drawn: 5 games,
lost: 13 games,
won: 13 games,
still ongoing: 7 games. (but these games will be losses on time-outs)
So, based on these statistics, I don't get the absolute evidence or feeling that he cheated during his Clangames for S.P.S., do you?
1 edit
Originally posted by masscat"Matching" is not "agreement". Matching Fritz is playing Fritz's top move. Exactly. There is no threshold involved. Any number of moves could be included within a threshold, so the statistic for agreement would be considerably higher than a match-up.
I chose the following game because it was played OTB, the opening was not “book”, and it was long. I let Fritz analyze my moves at 10 sec. with the threshold set at .25. Fritz made suggestions on 11 of my moves (no "?" or any gross blunders). Does that mean I matched 85 percent of the time? Somebody please clarify this for me.
Even the strongest human players will only average around 55% match-up to Fritz's top choice (over many, many games), whereas "agreement" using a 0.25 threshold could easily head north of 80%-90%.
4 edits
test your faith.
players can die
/ people can die.
players can be reborn in an other land by entering an other website.
/people can be reborn (according to some religions) in a heaven or nirvana etc.
is the other land: a land of fiction, of lies, and deceipt? or is it real?
www.gameknot.com.
how religious are you, and what is your religious view?
i like to spend sunday morning with my son - trying to help him know the world we live in. i take him to church sometimes - only every six months or so.
Originally posted by Loose ScrewIf those stats suggest anything, it is that Smiffy is good at setting up interesting challenges and setting up games against users operating at a similar rating.
That is a question for the admins to answer or decide since there is nothing about this in the TOS.
But I have checked GauravV's statistics for our Clan and to be honoust they are not impressive.
Total Clangames for S.P.S. : 38 games.
drawn: 5 games,
lost: 13 games,
won: 13 games,
still ongoing: 7 games. (but these games will be losses on time-ou ...[text shortened]... get the absolute evidence or feeling that he cheated during his Clangames for S.P.S., do you?
What it doesn't show is whether that level that they are playing to is due to computer assistance or not. Presumably most of the games were against strong opponents, you wouldn't expect him to have a score dramatically over 50%.
7 edits
Originally posted by Fat Ladyclick on "Player Tables"
I had a quick look at the profiles of the top few players on the site, and I must say that most of them don't post at all, and none posted anything useful!
There was a strange thread from 2003 about Akizy and his use of computer engines - did this used to be allowed on this site?
click on "Akizy"
click on "Akizy's public forum posts"
slide down to the bottom and choose page "4"
i do not know exactly what it means.
but i do remember years ago reading that Akizy claimed to be "using computers to avoid simple blunders" or something like that - before the anticomputer rules came in.
the thing that strikes me is akizy has survived the test of time with the game mods ... this is not a simple feat - many, many, many computer-players have fallen. And akizy has regularly been in the spotlight.
Do not judge too simply, there may be more than meets the eye.
i have brought the mods attention to this before.
i guess Akizy is a chess monster who experimented with computers briefly before they were banned, but can play very well without them too.
When were computers allowed?
I played on here long ago and if the use of computers was publicly accepted I would have had no wins at all.
I can't imagine that they didn't ban computer assistance from the outset.
If they did allow them Im glad they don't now. For me, anyone who has thier game history tainted with computer use is invalid.
Originally posted by PeakiteSmiffy is a good leader, so that is possible. An alternative explanation is he may have fed moves into an engine for tournaments more and didn't think clan games were as important. He won a huge amount of tournaments. I think using engines for all the games he played would have eaten up a lot of his time.
If those stats suggest anything, it is that Smiffy is good at setting up interesting challenges and setting up games against users operating at a similar rating.
What it doesn't show is whether that level that they are playing to is due to computer assistance or not. Presumably most of the games were against strong opponents, you wouldn't expect him to have a score dramatically over 50%.
Originally posted by wargamer66I've just had a look through his won tournaments, obviously I can't do a quick check on his near misses, but most of them have been played with short timeouts. So very few of the stronger players are in them. I can find a couple of players normally rated around 1950-2000 he has overcome, but only two rated higher than that.
Smiffy is a good leader, so that is possible. An alternative explanation is he may have fed moves into an engine for tournaments more and didn't think clan games were as important. He won a huge amount of tournaments. I think using engines for all the games he played would have eaten up a lot of his time.
kwgoodwin in Tournament 631 and rosaline in Tournament 456.
The former he shared the points with, one win apiece but dropped few points against the rest of a large field. The latter is the only example where he has directly overcome an opponent consistently above 2,000.
So really he's won a lot through the relative lack of big guns in those tournaments.
You really are desperate to pretend that you didn't have a che@ter playing challenges for you aren't you? Guess what, you did. Again.
Time? You really think scoring 50% against top flight opposition would take less time if you didn't use an engine?
And anyway, what evidence is there that GauravV is anything other than a weak player with an engine? If he really was a very good player (which he'd have to be to score 50% against good players in clan challenges) then che@ting doesn't make sense and he'd be better at che@ting than the other che@ts.
Originally posted by briancronWhat flexmore is referring to goes back to 2003. Before the games mods were introduced the prohibition on engine assistance wasn't enforced, and so their use was technically forbidden but widespread. I joined the site shortly before the vote on games mods about a year later. As far as I can tell from the discussion in the thread flexmore is on about (Thread 7091) Akizy did not use engines in Tournament and Clan games, but did use them for error checking in what are termed "unofficial" games in that thread. According to the thread he had this written in his profile at the time, alongside an offer to not use them at the opponents request so I don't think that there was any intent to cheat. I assume that in the mean-time that he stopped using them. I think that flexmore is trying to make some point about justice being unevenly handed out. However, at the time of the vote and the institution of the mods system I remember Russ saying that some people had pm'ed him and admitted to engine use, some of whom were banned and some not.
When were computers allowed?
I played on here long ago and if the use of computers was publicly accepted I would have had no wins at all.
I can't imagine that they didn't ban computer assistance from the outset.
If they did allow them Im glad they don't now. For me, anyone who has thier game history tainted with computer use is invalid.
Originally posted by GatecrasherThanks for clearing this up for me.
"Matching" is not "agreement". Matching Fritz is playing Fritz's top move. Exactly. There is no threshold involved. Any number of moves could be included within a threshold, so the statistic for agreement would be considerably higher than a match-up.
Even the strongest human players will only average around 55% match-up to Fritz's top choice (over m ...[text shortened]... y games), whereas "agreement" using a 0.25 threshold could easily head north of 80%-90%.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat I am saying is that I was here in 2002 and using a computer was not a widely accepted thing. I wouldn't have had any wins if everyone was using a computer. Unless I did too... but that would be pointless as my goal is to improve, not have a high rating.
What flexmore is referring to goes back to 2003. Before the games mods were introduced the prohibition on engine assistance wasn't enforced, and so their use was technically forbidden but widespread. I joined the site shortly before the vote on games mods about a year later. As far as I can tell from the discussion in the thread flexmore is on about ( ...[text shortened]... ome people had pm'ed him and admitted to engine use, some of whom were banned and some not.
I guess what you are saying is that it was rampant but illegal and some time in 2003/4 the site cracked down on cheaters or developed a good system.
I don't know Akizy or his games, I was speaking more generally.