Go back
Player ability?

Player ability?

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

I also want to subscribe very much but, from reading the forums, the 'apparent' lack of anti-cheating measures in place is somewhat off-putting.

Can I ask whether anyone can kindly explain why the *known* cheaters are not being banned?

Thanks in advance.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DiscoFingerz
I also want to subscribe very much but, from reading the forums, the 'apparent' lack of anti-cheating measures in place is somewhat off-putting.

Can I ask whether anyone can kindly explain why the *known* cheaters are not being banned?

Thanks in advance.
I suppose we can guess which is what happens in the absence of a proper explanation from site admin. Money is the first thing that springs to mind. Banning subscription paying members initially seems counter-productive. However there seems to be more than a handful of subscription paying members becoming non-subscription paying members or leaving the site completely because of the inaction. The only other reason I can think of is threat of legal action.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by thaughbaer
I suppose we can guess which is what happens in the absence of a proper explanation from site admin. Money is the first thing that springs to mind. Banning subscription paying members initially seems counter-productive. However there seems to be more than a handful of subscription paying members becoming non-subscription paying members or leaving the site ...[text shortened]... pletely because of the inaction. The only other reason I can think of is threat of legal action.
How about a statement then from the admin guys explaining what's happening? IMO paying subscribers have a right to expect to receive a fair game of chess for their money. Cheating cannot be completely eradicated, sure, but it can be minimised with preventative measures.

Surely the site should have a clear statement explaining it's position on cheating, including anti-cheating measures being used [in brief detail] and the punishment for cheating?

Without this, it must be time for an alternative option.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Christmas has just gone. Maybe we can hope for christmas 2012. I agree that being more open would quieten the rabble. But it's not the RHP way,

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Zygalski
How do I know?
I perform match rate analysis with a program called Batch Analyzer, Houdini & a quad-core pc is how 😉
fair enough 🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragwort
I believe that it is highly unlikely for an unassisted club standard player to beat an "identity" that uses one of the top analysis engines at full strength such as Fritz, Rybka, Hiarcs etc. and to do so would likely take almost all the analysis time available to the player to achieve what would almost have to be a better than perfect game. I actually think ...[text shortened]... y give up playing because they won't be able to get anything out of it.
I appreciate you taking the time to post all that 😉

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by thaughbaer
The only other reason I can think of is threat of legal action.
What legal action?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by adramforall
What legal action?
Who knows ? There's no shortage of frivolous litigation in the land of the free. I assume you're with the money theory.

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by DiscoFingerz
Can I ask whether anyone can kindly explain why the *known* cheaters are not being banned?
For starters, because it is very easy, as an honest, guv, forum poster, to *know* that someone is a cheater (as is proved in this veery establishment amply, repetitively, and ad nauseam), but a pretty sight less easy, as a site mod, to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

For another, what with the above ad nauseam and all, I could very much imagine if some mods just didn't care about cheaters any more. After all, you can catch and ban as many of them as you want - in the eyes of some posters here, it will never be enough.

Whether those are the real reasons? You and I may never know. But in my eyes, they are reasonable ones. Particularly the latter.

Richard