Originally posted by RagnorakI would suggest that propawnkiller should be made aware of the potentially serious allegation against him and be given a chance to defend himself.
Nicohuyboom, propawnkiller or Cludi could get the games sent to the with the move times included.
It would be interesting to see, alright.
D
In the meantime, I continue the search for untarnished duplicate games longer than 26 moves!
Originally posted by APBFrom the thread linked by Cludi...
I would suggest that propawnkiller should be made aware of the potentially serious allegation against him and be given a chance to defend himself.
propawnkiller: "3. Did you realise that quite often it was me who moved in one game before you moved on the other? (No, I'm not accusing you.) Or how else do you explain that I slowly got to an "advantage" of having about 2.5 days more left on the timebank than you had, before I was away from the computer for a few days."
D
Originally posted by techsouthYes, I surely believe you can conclude that propawnkiller was pulling a middle-man stunt. That's why I contacted Nicohuyboom and posted in the forums even though the game(s) were still in progress. I think it's unethical to copy moves from an ongoing game into another ongoing game, but I don't think it's a violation of the TOS and neither did Nicohuyboom when I made him aware of the situation...
Don't know how to compare the "times" of moves, but based on the fact that the oponent was rated much higher in both games, and that they happened about the same time, can we conclude that propawnkiller was pulling a middle-man stunt, with his two opponents actually playing against each other, unbeknownst to them?
If so, is that a violation of terms of service?
Originally posted by cludiIt does say in the TOS that you should not consult any third party - in a round about way this is what was happenning! - As Cludi and Nicohuyboom were being consulted!!
Yes, I surely believe you can conclude that propawnkiller was pulling a middle-man stunt. That's why I contacted Nicohuyboom and posted in the forums even though the game(s) were still in progress. I think it's unethical to copy moves from an ongoing game into another ongoing game, but I don't think it's a violation of the TOS and neither did Nicohuyboom when I made him aware of the situation...
Originally posted by APBBut technically, it's just observing a game, and using that for your moves. Similar to looking in a database.
It does say in the TOS that you should not consult any third party - in a round about way this is what was happenning! - As Cludi and Nicohuyboom were being consulted!!
I'm not saying that it's not underhanded play, and play that probably shouldn't be allowed, but as far as I can tell, it's not currently cheating.
Originally posted by techsouthThat's clever.
Don't know how to compare the "times" of moves, but based on the fact that the oponent was rated much higher in both games, and that they happened about the same time, can we conclude that propawnkiller was pulling a middle-man stunt, with his two opponents actually playing against each other, unbeknownst to them?
If so, is that a violation of terms of service?
Originally posted by ark13Its behaviour that should be stamped out immediately.
But technically, it's just observing a game, and using that for your moves. Similar to looking in a database.
I'm not saying that it's not underhanded play, and play that probably shouldn't be allowed, but as far as I can tell, it's not currently cheating.
IMO, its as bad as using an engine.
D
Without refering to any specific instance...
My own interpretation is that it is a violation of the TOS to play one player off against another.
It's consulting with a third party.
It differs from consulting a database, because the reference game has not been completed yet. Reference material used during a game should be in existance prior to the commencement of the game, otherwise it is no different to asking for external advice or consulting an engine, or creating a engine vs engine database that includes your current board position during the course of a game.
That's just an opinion. But I don't think anyone could or should defend such a "middle-man" activity. It's a novel way of cheating, but in my book, it is clearly cheating.
Using this method, anyone playing 2 strong players is vitually guaranteed a win or 2 draws, and of course, a nice boost for their rating.
Originally posted by GatecrasherFurthermore, if being a "middle-man" is legal against two human opponents, it is the same thing as being a "middle-man" against one human and one computer. Of course being the "middle-man" between a human and computer is the same as using the chess engine against the person.
Without refering to any specific instance...
My own interpretation is that it [b]is a violation of the TOS to play one player off against another.
It's consulting with a third party.
It differs from consulting a database, because the reference game has not been completed yet. Reference material used during a game should be in existance pri ...[text shortened]... ers is vitually guaranteed a win or 2 draws, and of course, a nice boost for their rating.[/b]
Thus it has to be against the TOS. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that using chess engines was legal too.
It might be counter-productive to "clarify" this in the terms of service. Most never even get the idea to pull the "middle-man" stunt. Mentioning it in the TOS just gives everyone the idea.
Originally posted by APBThat's not so remarkable, I've had many identical games from the first move to the last.
I have recently had two games Game 1116333 vs Meule andGame 1598758 vs Fnugbatter that were identical until black varied on the 26th move. I am sure in all my years of chess I have never had two games stay the same for this long.
Can anyone beat this with 2 games from the site against different opponents
I admit that up to white's 19th can be ...[text shortened]... ns for white pleasingly in both games!
Should I really be giving away my secrets like this!!
Originally posted by techsoutha good point, and well made
Furthermore, if being a "middle-man" is legal against two human opponents, it is the same thing as being a "middle-man" against one human and one computer. Of course being the "middle-man" between a human and computer is the same as using the chess engine against the person.
Thus it has to be against the TOS. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that using ...[text shortened]... pull the "middle-man" stunt. Mentioning it in the TOS just gives everyone the idea.