1 edit
I have no doubt that the admins of RHP are fair. The fact that the subject of this thread was at it for so long is evidence of that. Better to let a someone illegally prosper longer than to punish a clean player/subscriber.
but... whenever a someone is caught it can make the rest of us see things that are not there.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugAbout 15 years ago computers were playing around 1900-2100, and I realized about half my correspondence opponents were using them so I quit postal chess. I returned to postal/Internet play about three years ago, believing most users were now well beyond my level. Since then, most of my correspondence opponents (not counting RHP) have been in the 1800 & up to master range. I honestly do not think I’ve run into any engine users, and if I did, they certainly weren’t the few 1400 rated opponents I’ve had. Given the strength of engines today, most users are at levels far higher than I play at. If I occasionally meet somebody on their way up, I’ll lose and they will quickly be gone and be a headache for the likes of Akizy & Weyerstrass who know how to handle them anyway. So, until I reach 2400, I won’t worry about them. I think there’s too many cheating accusations here. I don’t see all this commotion about engine users in the postal org. I belong to or on the Internet site that I subscribe to. I’m sure they are there, but they don’t seem to be a problem and nobody worries about them too much.
So you are for or against the bannings? It's hard to tell your meaning from your post.
I’m not sure what is meant by engine match ups. Does that mean they chose a move selected by the computer, and if so, how long was the computer allowed to run? Or does it mean Fritz analyzed the game and did not suggest any improvements? If that’s the case, how long was it given to analyze each move?
I think engine use can be pretty obvious by looking at someones graph. I study chess when I can, and I am obviously improving - my graph demonstrates it. However, my graph is not rising fast, and I've cut down on games, increased opening study, and increased my tactics study. If I jumped up to say 2100 by February I would be suspect - and I wouldn't even be able to blame anybody for it. I'd simply have to prove my case, i.e. sending in a couple of game annotations. Chris mentioned in the public forum that banned users do get the chance to give their side, so for anybody to complain about a user being banned aside from the user himself is unnecessary.
Originally posted by masscatYeah, the meaning behind the moves is obviously essential. If you only point out different variations you've proven nothing - Fritz can do this just fine, but Fritz can't comment like a human. I just checked out this "stroubidoul" (sp.) guy, and his graph is a dead giveaway. 1300's have to spend years to hit 2000 - it's not just being able to play strong tactical moves at that level, it's being able to analyze deeply into the position, think of piece values, square control, etc. In the time he went from 1400 to 2000 he could probably read 2 or 3 chess books (max.), and that's if he studied some 4 or 5 hours everyday. Even then, I doubt he'd be over 1750.
I think this would be the test. If all you could supply was a list of variations and couldn't verbalize what's happening, I'd be suspicious.
It's all about involvement. I have spend at least 4 to 5 hours every day to play chess since I subscribed.
I will be very pleased to prove my level by taking any test that you want.
And the explaination of my "jump" in the rating is simple:
Just look at my opponents rating, I had never played with stronger players than me until I reached 1600. So before that it was very hard for me to make my rating grow.
So put me to the test! I'm ready to prove my point.
1 edit
Originally posted by Stroubidoul2I'm just a member of this site, I'm not anywhere near to admin. status, so there's nothing I can do to take away your ban - and from hearing you talk I fully support them. However, you could convince a couple of forum regulars to perhaps believe you by thoroughly annotating a game. I picked out a decisive win against a high level player for you to annotate. Remember, this probably will have no effect on whether you are allowed to stay or not, but it may convince people to feel some sympathy toward you. I didn't check to see if this matched up with an engine, and so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I were you I'd annotate thoroughly and quickly, because tbh I'm surprised the admins have allowed you to stay with your second acct. this long.
It's all about involvement. I have spend at least 4 to 5 hours every day to play chess since I subscribed.
I will be very pleased to prove my level by taking any test that you want.
And the explaination of my "jump" in the rating is simple:
Just look at my opponents rating, I had never played with stronger players than me until I reached 1600. So ...[text shortened]... y hard for me to make my rating grow.
So put me to the test! I'm ready to prove my point.
Game 2551097
Remember - I'm not an admin., annotating this game well may do absolutely nothing to ensure that you are unbanned, but it may help your public image.
Originally posted by Stroubidoul2Your rating explanation is a joke. You should have crushed lower rated players, not lost to 800s.
It's all about involvement. I have spend at least 4 to 5 hours every day to play chess since I subscribed.
I will be very pleased to prove my level by taking any test that you want.
And the explaination of my "jump" in the rating is simple:
Just look at my opponents rating, I had never played with stronger players than me until I reached 1600. So ...[text shortened]... y hard for me to make my rating grow.
So put me to the test! I'm ready to prove my point.
1 edit
Originally posted by Stroubidoul2A good player who doesn't play strong players will have a slower rating growth, but won't lose regularly against very weak players.
And the explaination of my "jump" in the rating is simple:
Just look at my opponents rating, I had never played with stronger players than me until I reached 1600. So before that it was very hard for me to make my rating grow.
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysOriginally posted by Nordlys
A good player who doesn't play strong players will have a slower rating growth, but won't lose regularly against very weak players.
A good player who doesn't play strong players will have a slower rating growth, but won't lose regularly against very weak players.
regularly?
did you even look at my games?
@cmsMaster
for your test, do you want me to comment the past move or the next?
Sorry for my understanding, but I'm not English 😉
Originally posted by Stroubidoul2Listen, the difference between an 800 and a 1000 is pretty minimal - any 2000 would know this. Also, people don't jump like you did. If you struggled with a 1000 at any point you would have to play for a long time before you became a 2000 rated player. And why are you on the forums arguing, you should be annotating the game I sent you - hurry up, I'm eager to see your annotations.
he was not 800 at the time and I was not 2000...
Originally posted by Stroubidoul2Yeah, you used to suck, and now you play at a very advanced level - all in a shorter time than it took me to get to 1571.
Originally posted by Nordlys
[b]A good player who doesn't play strong players will have a slower rating growth, but won't lose regularly against very weak players.
regularly?
did you even look at my games?[/b]
1 edit
@cmsMaster
for your test, do you want me to comment the past move or the next?
Sorry for my understanding, but I'm not English
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterOriginally posted by cmsMaster
Yeah, you used to suck, and now you play at a very advanced level - all in a shorter time than it took me to get to 1571.
Yeah, you used to suck, and now you play at a very advanced level - all in a shorter time than it took me to get to 1571.
My answer was not for you