You comin' to the clan meet later this month ya ol' bugger? 😛
Thanks 64SOP! I hope to be yes, so see ya there!
Re-'the game' 2000+ players must 'hunt down' likely looking (to them anyway) victories ! I don't know the ratio of high to low in order to increase rating but I guess at 2000 beating a 1600+ would give you some points!?
Originally posted by gothcharles Thanks 64SOP! I hope to be yes, so see ya there!
Re-'the game' 2000+ players must 'hunt down' likely looking (to them anyway) victories ! I don't know the ratio of high to low in order to increase rating but I guess at 2000 beating a 1600+ would give you some points!?
With that rating difference he would have got 3 points if he won. Anything more than 714 the higher rated player gets zero points.
Originally posted by Larkie I appreciate this topic has been done to death, but...
Some time ago I was naive enough to believe that games here are monitored for engine use. This used to be the case, but not now. As a result, the top pages of the leader board are a farce. Probably irrelevant to a mid-table duffer on page 164 such as I, but if my user name were Tebb or Caissad4 or any ot ...[text shortened]... face it, this is the area where the most committed engine users sit.
Am I being naive again?
I heard mix reviews of Caissad4. Lots of tournament wins with no losses and a few draws?
Running cheat detection scripts on a sizable sample of high rated players in the hope of seeing the statistics match the accusations did not prove useful (thus far). The process will be repeated with yet a larger sample and tweaked parameters, but right now, we are not in the position to ban anyone.
Originally posted by RBHILL I heard mix reviews of Caissad4. Lots of tournament wins with no losses and a few draws?
She lost a whole bunch just a couple weeks ago. Rating is just climbing again now.
Good for me as I have an edge in a 2nd round 2014 Champs game against her and I am looking for another 2k+ scalp ;-)
Originally posted by RBHILL I heard mix reviews of Caissad4. Lots of tournament wins with no losses and a few draws?
MIXED REVIEWS ?? I don't even own a database or chess engine. Indeed, I just won my 150th public tourney (the most on RHP). And why would you call over 2000 draws "few" ?? My highest OTB rating (USCF) was 2159. Current is 2059. My USCF member # is 11106111. If there was any strong Texas players here I would know them. I started playing OTB in 1973 and have won many titles. SHEESH !!😛
Sorry Caissad4, I wouldn't have mentioned you if I thought anyone might start baseless mud-slinging. Ridiculous.
I think Russ has pretty well answered this one. Let's see how things go from here. I guess all we can do is just refuse to play blatant engineers but I'm not marching with my feet. Too good a site.
Originally posted by Larkie Sorry Caissad4, I wouldn't have mentioned you if I thought anyone might start baseless mud-slinging. Ridiculous.
I think Russ has pretty well answered this one. Let's see how things go from here. I guess all we can do is just refuse to play blatant engineers but I'm not marching with my feet. Too good a site.
No apology is necessary. RBHill is just acting the fool on this one. I notice he has been absent in any reply. Hmmm.
Sometimes Chess players say and do very silly things after a defeat.
I looked at the game, Black threw his e-pawn at White. (is it therory?)
White played swapsy.
Black hobbled about probably blundering with 14...Bg5. 15 Nd5 looks good there.
A few timid looking moves from White waiting for more blunders.
White fannied about, Black made legal moves.
White dropped the exchange with a silly annoying blunder.
Black wrapped it up stumbling upon an obvious piece sac which
looked like it could have been played earlier.
If it was a computer then it's a ZX81....a broken ZX81.
I see 'Ulf t' got mentioned.
I played this lad in the 2nd round of RHP Ch. losing both games.
The Black Latvian was top mainline theory, abosolutely nothing wrong with that.
I changed a move order, missed an idea and got walloped.
He played most/all of the moves I would have played if I had his position.
In my White, I was doing OK but on 'a could not care less night' (keeping
oneself in the mood in C.C. Chess is very hard for me.) I made a few
impatient moves and his counter attack strolled home.
I defended depending on cheapo's (as always ) and failed. I could sense no silicon.
Players do get better. If one player decides to start using an opening book
to get into a middle game (like everyone is advising them to do) and
avoids simple blunders then on here their rating will rise.
Throwing names about in the hope that one is highlighting a box user is
probably not the most scientific method of catching these people.
One fear I have in seeing threads like this is it may encourage a 'if you cannot
beat them join them' mentality. So bona-fide players like caissad4 will suddenly
face more than their fair share of box cheats because they saw the name
in a thread on cheating and 2+2=5.
I can understand why Russ is reluctant to ban players for computer use.
It is very hard to prove, the forum fills up with aruments and abuse and
the cheat pops back in a few days under a new name.
It's may be an idea not to ban them so we know where they are.
Though I would like to to see the naming of players suspected stopped.
This use to carry a two week forum ban and the post pulled.
In 99% of the cases the alegation is false based on some half-cocked
theory, one good move in a game or it was done out of spite simply
because the player in queston happened to disagree with the poster on
an entirley different matter.
Sometimes Chess players say and do very silly things after a defeat.
(or after losing an argument in a forum.)
Policing
05 Oct '14 20:261 edit
Back to Top