Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member gambit05
    Mad Murdock
    04 Jan '12 22:20
    Here is my suggestion on how to deal with engine users:

    1. No bannings (optional if nothing else is in place)
    2. Check all players higher than a certain rating, say 2000, by Zygalsky's method, maybe also by the "blunder check" method (>20 games vs. higher rated players etc.)
    3. Add outcome of 2. to the players profile (or provide a list with a well known link).
    4. Repeat 2. regularly (e.g. next 20 games vs. higher rated players).
    5. Give volunteers of 2. (new game mods) a benefit, e.g. 1 year subscription.
    6. Volunteers have to be checked by the method(s) by at least two other volunteers/other players.
    7. Inform all players (especially Clan leaders) about this feature; maybe even before every new tournament, league game, or whatever.

    Outcome: In many case, players and Clan leaders have the information whether someone is "too good to be true". No accusations and no discussion needed. Everyone decides on his/her own.
  2. Subscriber venda
    Dave
    04 Jan '12 23:52
    Originally posted by gambit05
    Here is my suggestion on how to deal with engine users:

    1. No bannings (optional if nothing else is in place)
    2. Check [b]all
    players higher than a certain rating, say 2000, by Zygalsky's method, maybe also by the "blunder check" method (>20 games vs. higher rated players etc.)
    3. Add outcome of 2. to the players profile (or provide a list with a w ...[text shortened]... good to be true". No accusations and no discussion needed. Everyone decides on his/her own.[/b]
    Sounds a bit complicated to me.
    As I have said in other forums , as a clan leader I look at all players when issuing challenges and anyone with a "dodgy" profile I avoid.
    It's more difficult in tournaments as you have to enter at the last minute after looking at all the entrants!!
    The only way to weed out the cheats is not to play against them.
  3. 05 Jan '12 05:32
    If recruiting and retaining moderators is an issue for this website, then I like point #5.
  4. Standard member usmc7257
    semper fi
    05 Jan '12 14:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by andrew93
    If recruiting and retaining moderators is an issue for this website, then I like point #5.
    My understanding for the problem with retaining mods isn't with compensation. It is when they let the SA know that a person was cheating and nothing was done about it. What is the point of going through all the work to catch a cheat if they are allowed to stay. I'd have quit too if I was doing work that went unappreciated
  5. 06 Jan '12 22:23 / 1 edit
    Good point and I hear (from other threads) this is an ongoing issue.

    So if reports are being filed but not acted upon, then it sounds like that is the issue that needs to be resolved. There may be many reasons why this is the case.

    Are there enough site administrators? Is it a question of workload?

    Does the SA first have to take into account the motivation of the moderator? (should a requirement for being a moderator is that you do not actually play chess here?)

    Is it an issue of lost income for the website when banning subscribers? This raises some much bigger questions around business models etc. which can only be answered by the site owners and (respectfully) has no place in the forums.

    Is it the quality / reliability of the reports being issued?

    Is there an unstated assumption of innocence? i.e. are players automatically assumed to be innocent unless proven "beyond reasonable doubt"? Is there a difference in the understanding of "reasonable doubt" between the administrators and moderators?

    So unless the issue of why reports are not being acted upon is not resolved, cheaters not being suspended will continue to be an issue.

    Andrew
  6. 06 Jan '12 22:51
    Zygalski's ... squelsbelch's ... or whatever its name was, method is as much bullcrap as any other system. Blegh!
  7. 06 Jan '12 22:55
    Originally posted by Kegge
    Zygalski's ... squelsbelch's ... or whatever its name was, method is as much bullcrap as any other system. Blegh!
    How is it bullcrap? The best chess players in the world fail to reach a certain threshold that chess players on here routinely demolish and you call it bullcrap?
  8. 06 Jan '12 23:03
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    How is it bullcrap? The best chess players in the world fail to reach a certain threshold that chess players on here routinely demolish and you call it bullcrap?
    YEs I do, because it is one person's "statistics" without ANY scientific backup. Bullpoo! Its word against any other's. Do you believe any idiot on this site throwing percentages around as proof? If you so you are just as big an ignorant idiot as Z. is.
  9. 06 Jan '12 23:05
    Originally posted by Kegge
    YEs I do, because it is one person's "statistics" without ANY scientific backup. Bullpoo! Its word against any other's. Do you believe any idiot on this site throwing percentages around as proof? If you so you are just as big an ignorant idiot as Z. is.
    No, but I know this to be "the" system used to catch cheaters even in international tournaments.
  10. 06 Jan '12 23:15
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    No, but I know this to be "the" system used to catch cheaters even in international tournaments.
    How does one cheat OTB? 😕
  11. 06 Jan '12 23:18
    Originally posted by jimslyp69
    How does one cheat OTB? 😕
    bathroom breaks perhaps... or ear piece with somebody else using the engine. Why not just google it? I'm sure there have been plenty cheaters caught in tournaments.
  12. 07 Jan '12 17:44
    Originally posted by andrew93
    Is there an unstated assumption of innocence? i.e. are players automatically assumed to be innocent unless proven "beyond reasonable doubt"?
    That depends on who you ask.

    Ask the moderators, the answer is probably yes.

    Ask this forum, the answer is definitely no. Accusation means guilt, irrevocably and damnably, particularly when you're accused by The Usual Gang.

    Richard