* Game moderators - the cheat police

* Game moderators - the cheat police

Site Ideas

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
09 Dec 04

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing

I totally agree...

And I add my 2 cents (nor mine, taken from a web page 😳 ):

<begin of quote>

Autor: Ethical cheating artist (62.234.50.---)
Datum: 25.01.2004 22:08

When asked if using computers in online chess is "inherently unethical" many consider it so. Users of computers are labeled "cheaters." Many competitors mention that t ...[text shortened]... ose who would force others to play only by their preferred rules.


<end of quote>

-J
[/b]
If you want this site to change its rules to allow people to use engines you have a right to try and convince the administrators and the community. As of right now, the using of engines is against the rules, period. Whatever the difficulties of detecting and eradicating their use, to just ignore a rule that the vast majority of subscribers agree with and abide by would be wrong ethically and bad for the site. I think that blatant and obvious cheaters should be punished and I fail to see what's wrong with that.

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
09 Dec 04

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing

I totally agree...

And I add my 2 cents (nor mine, taken from a web page 😳 ):

<begin of quote>

Autor: Ethical cheating artist (62.234.50.---)
Datum: 25.01.2004 22:08

When asked if using computers in online chess is "inherently unethical" many consider it so. Users of computers are labeled "cheaters." Many competitors mention that t ...[text shortened]... ose who would force others to play only by their preferred rules.


<end of quote>

-J
[/b]
(RHP) RedHotPawn.com (and associated brands) Terms of Service
.....
3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :

(a) You will not create more than one account.

(b) You will not use chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game (unless expressly agreed prior to any game). Chess books and databases can be consulted during play

(c) You may not threaten or harass other users of this Service.


http://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php

r

Over seas

Joined
20 Oct 01
Moves
14169
09 Dec 04

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Sounds good to me, and I am sure there are some who would not want this....

P-
Ya, me for one. Is'nt 300 depressing enough? Do I really have to be subjected to my Full crap rating!!

G

Joined
26 Dec 03
Moves
9138
09 Dec 04

Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow

trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7
Gatecrasher
Cheshire Cat
SirLoseALot
Zumdahl
Arrakis

Removed Tejos name.

r

Over seas

Joined
20 Oct 01
Moves
14169
09 Dec 04

I have gone back and re read some of the posts. The one that stands out the most to me is El Buro's. Who here on this list owns and engine for checking games, and is qualified to do so?

Ok.
If you don't own an engine how are you qualified to understand the moves of a GM, IM, what have you?
I guess that I'm not qualified.
You can take me off the list. I want nothing to do with this anymore.

Mike

G
Whale watching

33°36'S 26°53'E

Joined
05 Feb 04
Moves
41150
09 Dec 04

I've just bought CM10. And I've ordered Fritz8 from the US.

I'm hoping I'll get some benefit from the software in analysing my mistakes (if I find time), and maybe practising some opening lines, because I'm really not that interested in playing against the damn things.

My youngsters may get some benefit from the learning modes if I can only get them interested. Spiderman, Harry Potter, Sims, etc seem to take precedence these days.

c
:-)

Sanremo

Joined
18 Sep 03
Moves
3535
09 Dec 04

Who here on this list owns and engine for checking games, and is qualified to do so? Probably someone but about these ones who is so skilled to understand the differences between a program move or a human one? And if there are some of them how can he/they SURE that he/they is/are using a program? This committee is one of the most stupid thing i've ever heard in this site. How can someone be sure of cheating of someone else? And when i say sure i say 100%. And if the judge are making a bad mistake? How can they have REAL profs about cheating? They can say &quot;probably or more&quot;. But is enough to accuse someone? I don't think so. An accused player is a dead player in this site and everywhere.
People that play on internet MUST know that someone can cheat. If they don't accept it they MUST play only in OTB. When i play here i know that my opponent can cheat (maybe i could be a cheater!!), but i'm not interested. As i'm not interested if i win or lose. I prefer a guilty free that an innocent dead.
Byeeee

G
Whale watching

33°36'S 26°53'E

Joined
05 Feb 04
Moves
41150
09 Dec 04

Originally posted by conticchio
Who here on this list owns and engine for checking games, and is qualified to do so? Probably someone but about these ones who is so skilled to understand the differences between a program move or a human one? And if there are some of them how can he/they SURE that he/they is/are using a program? This committee is one of the most stupid thing i've ever h ...[text shortened]... As i'm not interested if i win or lose. I prefer a guilty free that an innocent dead.
Byeeee
Everyone agrees with the sentiments you express, insofar as fairness and burdon of proof. The whole idea of the committee is so that accusations are not made public. An accused person is not dead at all. Where any reasonable doubt exists, it will always favour the accused.

100% sure is never possible. Absolutes, in this world, do not exist. But 99.99% sure is good enough for me. To, by chance, match a computer move for move, game for game takes the argument of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, beyond infinitesimal doubt, into statistical impossibility. Where guilt exists, it will not be at all difficult to prove. Where doubt exists, there will be no case.

Maybe there is room for a chess site that encourages engine use. But it is not RHP. I don't want play for months in a tournament, working my way up the field, only to be beaten in the final by a computer. I don't want to play in the clan league if it is riddled with engine use.

Engines have the potential to destroy the whole quality and experience of RHP.

Engine use it is clearly against the TOS of the site. It is, by definition, cheating.

Most people here would prefer the frustration of losing under their own steam rather than the hollow victories that cheating brings. But unfortunately, there are some barbarians around for whom winning is more important than playing the game fair and square.

I doubt if cheating could ever be eliminated 100%, but if we take the soft line, or ignore the problem, you can bet &quot;100% Sure&quot; that the incidence of cheating is going to increase exponentially, and ultimately this site will lose both its appeal and its honest players.

What is the point of having a chess illiterate with a 2600 rating, just because he knows how to use Fritz????

Don't be swayed by these hollow arguments. Let's press ahead. I vote for zero tolerance.

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

S
Love gave me wings

Turfed Out

Joined
23 Jun 04
Moves
12608
09 Dec 04

c
:-)

Sanremo

Joined
18 Sep 03
Moves
3535
09 Dec 04

How can u and who can express 99% or 80% or 50%? Who decided the % of guilty? U wrote &quot;Where guilt exists, it will not be at all difficult to prove.&quot;... are u sure? Are u really sure? U spoke about 99.99% that is not 100%!! For u is reasonable? For me not. None want to encourage cheating. Come on!! But i hope for u that tomorrow someone don't have the reasonable doubt (about 99.9% like u say)that u are a cheater and u will be... be what? Banned? Cancelled? What? And if u are innocent like probably u are? Everyone consider too much simple to understand differences between a computer and a human. None discuss that engines are bad for chess but u have to live with it.
If guilty will not be accused or punished, what is the meaning of this policy?
In athletic judges can make control of blood and more so they are REALLY SURE of cheating. But here? U consider SURE that &quot;someone says u are probably a cheater&quot;? I repeat: I hope u won't be the first one!! Because there are some cheater u prefer to &quot;kill&quot; an innocent? Is this a policy? OMG!!
It's easier to prove if someone manipulate his rating creating multiple accounts thanks IP or 50 matches played against the same opponent and resignation after few moves (i read many posts about it). These are &quot;objective proofs&quot; not &quot;sobjective proofs&quot;. Is the &quot;subjective&quot; that i don't like.
I think this site will lose many paying players with these policy. Why i would have to pay (remember that i pay and we are not so much) if someone can decide without &quot;objective proofs&quot; that i cannot in example play tournaments' matches or clan's ones? I could not accept this absurd policy.
My membership is ending. I will not subscribe again... and this is for sure 100% and not 99.9%!! Many people that now shout for this policy saying that they would pay if... when and if (obviously) will be accused will understand what this policy means in real.
Byeeee