Originally posted by wormwoodrec'd for hawtness.
you claimed in this thread that looking at graph is enough. I blew that right out of the water with a simple counterexample. you didn't even comment that counterexample but started trying to change the subject. nuff said.
what makes your stance even more silly, is that you of all people should know better than implicating that a drastic rating difference between different time controls means cheating.
Originally posted by AudreyxSophiewell, not exactly 'paid', but one 1900+ player did once offer (i.e. PMed me) me to draw in our mutual tournament games, like, 10 moves into the games, so he could win the tournament. Needless to say, he beat me anyway (as I declined his offer) and ultimately won it anyway, it just shows how eager some people are in order to win..
Will we talk about cheat. What about the guy who paid his opponent so they give up.
How do we call that ?
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodYou "blew nothing out of the water". Your "counterexample" has absolutely nothing to do with the type of graphs that were being mentioned. Quirine has a graph that varies over time - he does not have a graph where he bumbles around at a very low level of play and then abruptly shoots up 500 points in a very short period of time crushing players who were just beating him. I'll make it simple for you: EVERY single one of those "ski slope" graphs has been shown to be a cheater. Without exception. Sure, run engine analysis of them if you must and you'll find a rapid change in engine match ups with a virtual, sudden absence of serious error. This is impossible by any means BUT cheating.
you claimed in this thread that looking at graph is enough. I blew that right out of the water with a simple counterexample. you didn't even comment that counterexample but started trying to change the subject. nuff said.
what makes your stance even more silly, is that you of all people should know better than implicating that a drastic rating difference between different time controls means cheating.
What "different time controls" are you talking about? Last I checked the time controls affecting graphs here were CC ones.
BTW, people who don't even play OTB and can't crack 1300 on ICC really should take the advice about glass houses.
EDIT: What I said was "I think certain graphs ARE enough."(emphasis added). For those players without engines or the inclination to do detailed engine analysis of other player's games. atticus idea is a valid one - if there's a player with the "ski slope" graph i.e. someone who played at a low level and then abruptly shot up the charts, you should avoid playing them if possible as they are cheating.
Originally posted by RenarsHow is that different from two draw offers?
well, not exactly 'paid', but one 1900+ player did once offer (i.e. PMed me) me to draw in our mutual tournament games, like, 10 moves into the games, so he could win the tournament. Needless to say, he beat me anyway (as I declined his offer) and ultimately won it anyway, it just shows how eager some people are in order to win..
Originally posted by no1marauderI think certain graphs are enough for avoiding to play those people, and perhaps even gossiping about the player, but when things get official (like banning from a site), some kind of hard evidence is a must. harder the better. 😉
You "blew nothing out of the water". Your "counterexample" has absolutely nothing to do with the type of graphs that were being mentioned. Quirine has a graph that varies over time - he does not have a graph where he bumbles around at a very low level of play and then abruptly shoots up 500 points in a very short period of time crushing players who were ...[text shortened]... up the charts, you should avoid playing them if possible as they are cheating.
2 edits
Originally posted by philidor positionwhat he was offering (i.e. he PMed me) was rigging the games, at least as per definition in my book or bad sportsmanship, to secure winning the tournament. he needed 2 points to win it (I think) and ours were the last games left.
a 1900 rated player offering you to draw both of your games to win his tournament? I didn't see what's wrong with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by AudreyxSophieI got that. it just made me remember this instance I had...I wasn't saying it's the same, but would think it's still related to the the subject of 'cheating'. you don't necessarily have to exchange money
I was talking about something like me paying you ten bucks so you give up and let me win.
Well, Having more money then your opponent is not supposed to make you win turnaments, that is corruption, it may not be the right word here. And there is the operation give points, opening multiple accounts and giving himself/herself many points and rating points in order to be at the top, except the last one would be really hard and time consuming here, and we will see it easily.
I don't get what canthey learn by using engine like that. If only engine had brain... Hopefully, Engine has not totaly analyse chess, as if it was totaly analysed, people would stop playing chess and start playing go.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI see this is waste of time. and for the record my current ICC 5-minute rating is 1506.
You "blew nothing out of the water". Your "counterexample" has absolutely nothing to do with the type of graphs that were being mentioned. Quirine has a graph that varies over time - he does not have a graph where he bumbles around at a very low level of play and then abruptly shoots up 500 points in a very short period of time crushing players who were up the charts, you should avoid playing them if possible as they are cheating.
which doesn't even matter as I'm not the one with 400-500 pts rating difference between his OTB & RHP ratings, and claiming it's not POSSIBLE to have someone blitz their moves here at a low rating, then having say 500 pts added to it overnight by taking their time.
and in case you're thinking of telling me that there are no players who'd do that (which would be a wild assumption), I'll take up jusuh once again: the guy is rated 2100 OTB, 2050 OTB blitz, but only 1615 RHP obviously because he never played serious CC here. assuming he couldn't go +500pts with a graph explosion overnight due to a change of attitude would be ridiculous. and banning him based on that graph without statistically checking the games plain WRONG.
Originally posted by wormwood+rec for more general hottness
I see this is waste of time. and for the record my current ICC 5-minute rating is 1506.
which doesn't even matter as I'm not the one with 400-500 pts rating difference between his OTB & RHP ratings, and claiming it's not POSSIBLE to have someone blitz their moves here at a low rating, then having say 500 pts added to it overnight by taking their time.
...[text shortened]... and banning him based on that graph without statistically checking the games plain WRONG.