Whats wrong with game moderation?

There does not seems any more 3(b) bans for more than month. Latest 3(b) bans I remember were in about the beginning of September (or am I missing something?).

I don`t believe that the reason is absence of cheaters in this site, so the question is: Whats wrong with game moderation again?

I can see the 2008 Championship win being awarded 2 or 3 times over the next year or so unless swift action isn't taken.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
I can see the 2008 Championship win being awarded 2 or 3 times over the next year or so unless swift action isn't taken.

It seems you suspect more than 1 engine among the finalists and expect those engines to take the 1st 2 or 3 places.

I must admit if any tournament will encourage engine users to pull out all stops and take risks it is the final of this tournament.

In my opinion every game in the last round should be evaluated as a matter of course and the performance compared with earlier games in the tournament from the same player. This may take time but it will be a great deterent.

I've dropped my subscription for this reason. There's no reason to keep obvious cheats around for 3+ months, let alone a year or more. Of course, benefit of the doubt / burden of proof need to be respected, but some of these cases are just absurd.

The policy of lax enforcement emboldens those who might be tempted.

I dunno, maybe it's a lost cause.

i applied to be a moderator and got a nice reply stating that the site used people that had been affiliated with it for some time, but that they would keep me in mind!

Originally posted by DawgHaus
I've dropped my subscription for this reason. There's no reason to keep obvious cheats around for 3+ months, let alone a year or more. Of course, benefit of the doubt / burden of proof need to be respected, but some of these cases are just absurd.

The policy of lax enforcement emboldens those who might be tempted.

I dunno, maybe it's a lost cause.

Depending on who it is doing the cheating, the old 85% or more out of book top 3 match-up over time isn't enough anyhow!

I have Fritz 11 coming in the next day or so & I will analyse a few games by Kasparov, Kramnik, Capablanca, Fischer etc and find out myself how some of our more notorious RHP Untouchables compare with these top 3 stats.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Depending on who it is doing the cheating, the old 85% or more out of book top 3 match-up over time isn't enough anyhow!

I have Fritz 11 coming in the next day or so & I will analyse a few games by Kasparov, Kramnik, Capablanca, Fischer etc and find out myself how some of our more notorious RHP Untouchables compare with these top 3 stats.

You're going to use OTb games to create a standard whereby you will judge correspondence games?
Or do/did these players play corr too?

Originally posted by Katastroof
You're going to use OTb games to create a standard whereby you will judge correspondence games?
Or do/did these players play corr too?

I just thought it would be interesting to see how the OTB Super GM's such as Kasparov and Fischer compare with the CC luminaries which grace RHP.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I've heard that these greats only match-up with top 3 choices around 75-80% of the time at the most over time.

Engines play in a very different way than human beings, so I assume higher match-ups than this are not just down to the fact that some average OTB player has 3 days to think of a move, use a database of human games and then goes on to play his games like Fritz!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
I just thought it would be interesting to see how the OTB Super GM's such as Kasparov and Fischer compare with the CC luminaries which grace RHP.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I've heard that these greats only match-up with top 3 choices around 75-80% of the time at the most over time.

Engines play in a very different way than human beings, so I as ...[text shortened]... think of a move, use a database of human games and then goes on to play his games like Fritz!

I see.If it intrests you,you must do it 🙂
I just thought it a bit strange,no offense,to compare OTB with corr hence the question.
This does remind me of another question I had but doesn't fit here.Will make new thread.

I suspect that OTB games will have a lower match up than correspondence games whether played here or elsewhere. I already tried this experiment with Hans Berliner. He had a higher match up than typical for OTB play. The reason, as far as I can see, is quite simply that a correspondence player uses more calculation and less intuition in play. He/she is also less likely to blunder simply because they have much more time in which to notice errors. However, anyone playing more than a few games at a time (15 say) is likely to be playing more like an OTB player than a correspondence player. I know from experience that more than about ten games for me results in lower quality of play.

NB I am NOT saying that a correspondence player is more likely to play like an engine or even think like an engine. I am just pointing out that the opportunity to calculate and think more deeply about a position results in less errors which may result in an increased match up between man and machine.

Originally posted by Kepler
I suspect that OTB games will have a lower match up than correspondence games whether played here or elsewhere. I already tried this experiment with Hans Berliner. He had a higher match up than typical for OTB play. The reason, as far as I can see, is quite simply that a correspondence player uses more calculation and less intuition in play. He/she is also le ...[text shortened]... sition results in less errors which may result in an increased match up between man and machine.

At least some players in this site have managed to play in OTB speed with very high engine matchup.

Originally posted by Kepler
I suspect that OTB games will have a lower match up than correspondence games whether played here or elsewhere. I already tried this experiment with Hans Berliner. He had a higher match up than typical for OTB play. The reason, as far as I can see, is quite simply that a correspondence player uses more calculation and less intuition in play. He/she is also le ...[text shortened]... sition results in less errors which may result in an increased match up between man and machine.

What's a typical OTB Super GM & CC Master top 3 match-up % and what was Berliner's if you don't mind my asking?

Originally posted by Korch
At least some players in this site have managed to play in OTB speed with very high engine matchup.

I know. OTB speed of moving is not correspondence chess. If we were to look at purely correspondence style chess (i.e.players who play long time controls and/or very view games) I suspect the match up would be higher than for typical OTB play but those you are talking about had even higher match ups with huge numbers of games and very often fast move rates.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
What's a typical OTB Super GM & CC Master top 3 match-up % and what was Berliner's if you don't mind my asking?

Berliner's was 82% in Kepler's analysis. Here's the entire (interesting) thread: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=97088&page=1#post_1817591

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
What's a typical OTB Super GM & CC Master top 3 match-up % and what was Berliner's if you don't mind my asking?

In the games I sampled Kasparov came in at 82%, Karpov and Kramnik slightly lower (about 80% I thinK). Ivar Bern hit 90%, a surprisingly low match up considering he is known to use an engine. Hans Berliner came out at 85% in this sample, all games before 1990 so no real possibility of an engine being of any use to a good player. A smaller sample of games from the final of the 5th Correspondence Chess World Championship gave a match up rate of 88%. Considering the 5th world championship final started in 1965 there is very little chance of engine use affecting quality of play.