You so called experts please tell me why I shouldn't have resigned these games!
So my rating went down all at once, guess that has never happened to anyone else on this site. Si ...[text shortened]... t exactly the sign of a sandbagger.
Some people on these site definitely need to get a life.
Do you think he resigned this game because he is a sandbagger? I thought it was because I'm a fabulous player. The fellas in his local chess club told him what a great player when he was asking for their advice during our game...... Oops, sorry, seeking advice violates the TOS and he wouldn't do that either would he? THAT would be cheating.
Originally posted by drdon Do you think he resigned this game because he is a sandbagger? I thought it was because I'm a fabulous player. The fellas in his local chess club told him what a great player when he was asking for their advice during our game...... Oops, sorry, seeking advice violates the TOS and he wouldn't do that either would he? THAT would be cheating.
my2sons, Don't smear yourself!
I feel special now being trashed in not one but two forums.
Drdon, let me spell it out for you. Your play was suspicious up to that point, my chess experts concurred, I resigned. No advise regarding game strategy was either sought or given.
Originally posted by my2sons I feel special now being trashed in not one but two forums.
Drdon, let me spell it out for you. Your play was suspicious up to that point, my chess experts concurred, I resigned. No advise regarding game strategy was either sought or given.
Clear enough for you.
My advice is to stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself. 3(b) of The TOS states that you must not seek the assistance of a third party while a game is in progress. You have now stated twice that you sought the opinions of third persons during our game and that this advice helped you arrive at your "funny" decision to resign.
Can you give me a good reason as to why I should not regretfully refer the matter as I am apparently obliged to? At the very least provide us all with your solemn word that you will not seek such assistance again.
Originally posted by drdon My advice is to stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself. 3(b) of The TOS states that you must not seek the assistance of a third party while a game is in progress. You have now stated twice that you sought the opinions of third persons during our game and that this advice helped you arrive at your "funny" decision to resign.
Can you give me a good re ...[text shortened]... very least provide us all with your solemn word that you will not seek such assistance again.
Originally posted by my2sons I feel special now being trashed in not one but two forums.
Drdon, let me spell it out for you. Your play was suspicious up to that point, my chess experts concurred, I resigned. No advise regarding game strategy was either sought or given.
Clear enough for you.
You sought advice from "chess experts" on our game while the game was in progress. and you say you based your decision to resign on the advice they gave you, ergo you admit that their advice affected the outcome of the game. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
The first sixteen ply of the game in question are within theory according to 365chess.com, and probably the next few moves are within some of the bigger commercial databases.
I don't see how the final seventeen ply are so clearly indicative of cheating. When you eliminate recaptures and forced moves, there really isn't much of a sample left from which to draw suspicions.
Originally posted by drdon You sought advice from "chess experts" on our game while the game was in progress. and you say you based your decision to resign on the advice they gave you, ergo you admit that their advice affected the outcome of the game. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
no I had decided to resign the game regardless what they said. It just confirmed my suspicions. Perhaps in retrospect I should have resigned the game prior to getting a second opinion. If the issue ever arises again, that is the way I would handle it but the need for that is unlikely since most of my opponents are pure as the driven snow.
Originally posted by EinZweiDrei The first sixteen ply of the game in question are within theory according to 365chess.com, and probably the next few moves are within some of the bigger commercial databases.
I don't see how the final seventeen ply are so clearly indicative of cheating. When you eliminate recaptures and forced moves, there really isn't much of a sample left from which to draw suspicions.
Not sure how suspicious his play is. Your first 12 moves follow the RHP database which is perfectly legal to consult during play. Furthermore what sort of buffoon would use an engine in a basic challenge and still only have a 1400 rating?
However, I hardly think saying 'Hey frank, does this guy look like he's using an engine? Yeah? I guess I'll just resign to show him up.' is in violation of the terms of service. If anything, the sporting thing to do if you accidentally get advice is to resign.
Originally posted by EinZweiDrei The first sixteen ply of the game in question are within theory according to 365chess.com, and probably the next few moves are within some of the bigger commercial databases.
I don't see how the final seventeen ply are so clearly indicative of cheating. When you eliminate recaptures and forced moves, there really isn't much of a sample left from which to draw suspicions.
Looks like a normal opening to me.
It was a totally "normal" unremarkable opening, played without consultation of any kind. I think my2sons should indicate exactly which move or moves he found unusual enough to seek the advice of experts.
Originally posted by Darax The Good I think you should get over being unfairly forced to win.
I'll gladly take the points but not the imputation that I was cheating in some way to get the game to a position where my 'opponent' thought it was appropriate to resign.
The facts are that; 1) there is no indication at all that I was using "funnyware" to move; and 2) positions were clearly equal when he resigned... even a 'novice' like me can see that.... and nobody in this thread has disagreed.
Attempting to cover up clumsy sandbagging by smearing an opponent in this way is completely unacceptable and downright cowardly. His behaviour is reprehensible and deserves to be recognised for what it is.
I'm not in a clan, so forgive me for being insensitive to clan issues. I'm surprised clans don't have separate ratings to avoid non-clan play from impacting clan play.
Why was white in such a bad position early on?
11 Nov '10 17:31
Back to Top