When we are drawn to play against someone we PM our address's
to each other and play postal chess just like the good old days.
That way there is no need to log on to see what your opponents reply
is so therefore you do not need to switch on your computer.
...Hang on....I've not thought this out...
People can still turn on their computers to get their moves from a box.
OK (Plan 458).
Everyone right away PM everyone else with your address and later on this
week me and Fat Lady will sabotage the National Grid.
No Electricity - no computers.
Solved.
Why has no one thought of this before?
- Joined
- 16 Dec 04
- Moves
- 56692
Plan 459, laugh like hyenas at those who cheat - they actually waste their own time to play moves that computer tells them too. I laugh every day. What a sad life - just because they're crap at this game they acquire the help of Stevie Silicont.1ts, they must have some serious voids in their personal life. So, plan 459, laugh.
I'm going to go back to my G&T now. All the best
Originally posted by greenpawn34Sounds great. Especially since it won't affect Norway, so I'll still have heating and computer access.
When we are drawn to play against someone we PM our address's
to each other and play postal chess just like the good old days.
That way there is no need to log on to see what your opponents reply
is so therefore you do not need to switch on your computer.
...Hang on....I've not thought this out...
People can still turn on their computers to get ...[text shortened]... ional Grid.
No Electricity - no computers.
Solved.
Why has no one thought of this before?
That's completely unworkable.
Plan 460: Modify the way that moves are entered so that every user has to check a tickbox to confirm the following before their move is accepted:
"I hereby promise that this move is the fruit of my own loins and that I did not use Fritz, Rybka, Crafty or indeed any chess playing program computer whatsoever to aid me in my decision, and may God strike me down dead if this is not the truth".
After a few weeks all the cheats will be dead and burning in Hell and this site will be clean, with someone rated 1600 or so at the top of the player tables.
Originally posted by Fat LadyYou play with your loins?
That's completely unworkable.
Plan 460: Modify the way that moves are entered so that every user has to check a tickbox to confirm the following before their move is accepted:
"I hereby promise that this move is the fruit of my own loins and that I did not use Fritz, Rybka, Crafty or indeed any chess playing program computer whatsoever to aid me in my ...[text shortened]... l and this site will be clean, with someone rated 1600 or so at the top of the player tables.
Originally posted by irontigranas far as I can remember, that was plan 6, which apparently seems to have failed. 😕
how about this-
why dont we look up % matches, and then actually [b]ban those who dont pass.[/b]
the first plans included trusting a human soul (plan 1 was actually asking people if they were cheating). by plan 3, we figured there was no reason to trust what people say, and 4 and 5 were wasted attempts for figuring out ways of detecting lies in online communication. but we are improving very fast. I predict before plan 1000 this problem will be over for good.
chess.com seems to have an interesting variant on RHP's system. From what I can see the same match up analysis is done (if not the same, very similar) but if the suspect fails those in charge ask the suspect to explain their apparent abilities. If the suspect can hold a conversation about chess in which they can (a) make sense and (b) explain plausibly and/or verifiably their better-than-master ability they are allowed to remain, otherwise they get the chop. The banning process seems to be more ruthless as well.
Originally posted by KeplerI like the idea. Anybody who fails the match up analysis will be called to explain the logic behind his or her move to RHP representative. This shall be done during the game. If the move does not belong to us we may find it is difficult to explain the logic behind it.
chess.com seems to have an interesting variant on RHP's system. From what I can see the same match up analysis is done (if not the same, very similar) but if the suspect fails those in charge ask the suspect to explain their apparent abilities. If the suspect can hold a conversation about chess in which they can (a) make sense and (b) explain plausibly and/or ...[text shortened]... to remain, otherwise they get the chop. The banning process seems to be more ruthless as well.
At least we successfully send "We think we to know what you are doing" message to potential cheaters.