Originally posted by jonbeckett73 My two penneth - I used to run a big website, and the same situation happened there - the monkeys started trying to run the zoo - as you are all (unwittingly) doing.
By raking over the past and fighting with one another you are doing more and more damage to the community you are a part of.
Perhaps you weren't very good at your job. Nobody is trying to take over here. There is much intelligent and well thought out opinion being presented on this difficult issue and branding all these posters as monkeys is just arrogant.
Although this isn't going to be resolved to everyones satisfaction, lessons will be learned, and the site will survive. I suspect that this state of affairs coinciding with some major technical issues hasn't helped but I believe it is being addressed now.
Originally posted by RDM I just can't believe that soneone who respects chess so much would dishonour it by using an engine in games. Just totally illogical to me.
GMs have been caught on engine use. people do crazy things.
I have long held Tebb and Cludi in the highest regard. They have both been not only top level players here, but also people who frequent the forums have undoubtedly benefitted from their contributions over the years. The sad thing to me is that it seems we will lose both of the personalities regardless of how this is resolved...
Originally posted by Fat Lady I made up my mind to stop playing online chess several months ago, it was nothing to do with Cludi. The engine users I played will probably never be banned. I don't really have a great deal of faith in the game mod system, I'd prefer something semi-automatic, e.g. analysis of games of anyone who reaches a certain rating or who beats a strong player whilst s ...[text shortened]... sed them of cheating, but perhaps if initial analysis suggested something might be dodgy.
I want to agree with this and with Fat Lady's previous post.
There were no game mods. This was a problem.
A system that relies on accusation from bitter opponents and innuendo to start a process is not the best system.
We need a system that checks everyone over a certain rating level.
Originally posted by Red Night I want to agree with this and with Fat Lady's previous post.
There were no game mods. This was a problem.
A system that relies on accusation from bitter opponents and innuendo to start a process is not the best system.
We need a system that checks everyone over a certain rating level.
ICC has a system like that. Why can't we.
Why give cheaters a threshold they can cheat up until?
Opponents who get cheated should be bitter. If a player who loses a game runs an analysis and there is a very high matchup to an engine, why shouldn't he be able to bring a complaint regardless of what his opponent's rating is? The Game Mods can sort it out.
Some people here call "Innuendo" what most people call in the real world facts.
Originally posted by RDM I've decided to open my own thread because I see little support or belief in a player that has been a member for a long time (and an honoured member).
1) If anyone has a suspicion that a user is an engine user then he or she has every right to report that user.
2) There is a process to follow and, hopefully, the outcome will be the correct one.
3) In the in ...[text shortened]... one day and decide to use an engine?
Why can't we just wait and let the mods do their job?
I guess you can thank whoever let the cat out of the bag that he was being investigated. Without that there would have been no discussion about this matter !!
Cheaters at Chess are the same as athletes who use drugs and steroids oh not me and you better prove what your accusing me of or my $600 an hour lawyer will have you for lunch when 5 or 6 of the best labs in the World all tell him yes you did use steroids it's in your urine he'll deny, deny, deny until finally at the end the athlete gives up and says so what? everybody does it he just shrugs it off it's all about them their ego their rating being first at all cost: screw everyone else.
If you guys leave the sight they win don't quit Red Hot Pawn or give these creeps who cheat the satisfaction.
Originally posted by Red Night I want to agree with this and with Fat Lady's previous post.
There were no game mods. This was a problem.
A system that relies on accusation from bitter opponents and innuendo to start a process is not the best system.
We need a system that checks everyone over a certain rating level.
ICC has a system like that. Why can't we.
My question would be, why do they have to be OVER a certain rating level? Lower rated can cheat as well as higher rated, and go unnoticed for a very long time, while in the meantime winning many tournaments, and I point my finger at no one, or mention no names!!
P.S. In fact with lower rated players you have the added problem, that a higher rated player could be helping them with their games, so then you have no engine use for proof of cheating!!!
Originally posted by Very Rusty My question would be, why do they have to be OVER a certain rating level? Lower rated can cheat as well as higher rated, and go unnoticed for a very long time, while in the meantime winning many tournaments, and I point my finger at no one, or mention no names!!
P.S. In fact with lower rated players you have the added problem, that a higher rated playe ...[text shortened]... could be helping them with their games, so then you have no engine use for proof of cheating!!!
I think I was echoing other people's posts.
Ideally, I would like to see a system that checks everyone automatically. I have been told this is the system they use at ICC.
If the checking process is going to be manual, it seems impossible to check every player manually. So, I was suggesting as a matter of expediency that we only check the higher rated players.
Obviously, if someone had a complaint about a lower rated player, I would want that complaint given the attention it deserved.
I'm not sure that there is anyway to check if a lower rated player is getting help from a human source.
Originally posted by Red Night I think I was echoing other people's posts.
Ideally, I would like to see a system that checks everyone automatically. I have been told this is the system they use at ICC.
If the checking process is going to be manual, it seems impossible to check every player manually. So, I was suggesting as a matter of expediency that we only check the higher ra ure that there is anyway to check if a lower rated player is getting help from a human source.
So, if I was to suggest as a matter of "expediency", that we just checked out the 1800 and under, and let the higher rated players complain if they had a complaint, this would be perfectly acceptable?
I somewhat of a neophyte to tournament chess so perhaps this is a naive question. What is there to gain by using an engine? Is there some sort of reward or recognition to be had in winning a RHP chess tournament other than simple "bragging rights"?
I mean, I'm here because it's a good diversion at the end of the day. Hard to see how just running an engine would be anything other than a waste of time (well...unless I'd written the engine and wanted to test it, but I think people do that on FICS).
Hard to imagine cheating would be rampant because it's difficult to see what the motivation would be.
Originally posted by corvus I somewhat of a neophyte to tournament chess so perhaps this is a naive question. What is there to gain by using an engine? Is there some sort of reward or recognition to be had in winning a RHP chess tournament other than simple "bragging rights"?
I mean, I'm here because it's a good diversion at the end of the day. Hard to see how just running an engi ...[text shortened]... gine cheating would be rampant because it's difficult to see what the motivation would be.
Well after a laughing emoticon was posted to me when I failed to find a simple mate in a totally won position in the closing seconds of a blitz game it occurred to me that for some the pleasure is not so much in winning but in seeing the other person lose. If this is what floats your boat the fact that you achieve this effortlessly by using an engine may add a soupcon of sadistic pleasure in causing someone else discomfort.
Originally posted by corvus I somewhat of a neophyte to tournament chess so perhaps this is a naive question. What is there to gain by using an engine? Is there some sort of reward or recognition to be had in winning a RHP chess tournament other than simple "bragging rights"?
I mean, I'm here because it's a good diversion at the end of the day. Hard to see how just running an engi ...[text shortened]... gine cheating would be rampant because it's difficult to see what the motivation would be.
I think I have a very simple answer: Lower rated get tired of losing...Higher rated want to be the best, also gives them bragging rights...Just my humble opinion, of the why's 😛
My thoughts on recent engine use allegations
07 Mar '08 13:31
Back to Top