22 Dec 04
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowI love you grayeyes. I especially like that last game. So it would seem this new side topic could have possibly been started because I beat someones engine a couple of times, hmmm interesting, though I am still in shock here. And from his play really don't believe he could have been using anything to help. Felt like I was in a stronger position throughout most of the recent game don't know anything that would have allowed that to happen easily. Looking at those 3 games though makes you say hmmmm I guess. Sigh, still in shock and feeling uncomfortable about where this went with Russ' post :-( Don't feel good at all about this. Any thoughts on my game with him anyone? Game 824240
Game 512417
Game 525049
Game 510589
Stunning
:-)
22 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugtsits possible I have picked up 700 points in a few weeks but I started at a bit under 1300 which was after being timed out during a 2 month absence. I cant see the beginning of my graph any more but I must have picked up 700 over a couple of months but of course you can see the load of games I've played. I have close to more loses than the amount of games played for the players being discussed and then another 500 wins which means i played like 5 times as many games as them. Being in tournament which gave 82 concurrent games certainly helped too. I can move up fairly quickly if I can pick up alot of games and get my opponent to play them out fast enough or get them down early so they simply resign after like 15-20 moves. But thats just me, When at #3 spot had like 2000 more moves in the month than anyone else in top 20, even now, though I am not back there Yet, I have a considerable amount of more moves than anyone there.
[b]how can you say ragnorak's curve looks anything like yours???...you went from being an average 1200 player to a 1900 player in no time at all
Yeah, it only took me about 230 games and 8 months to go from 1200 to 1900.
It took ragnorak 9 months to go from 1200 to 1835, but he only needed 181 rated games. So what are you really saying?
I think ...[text shortened]... efully next time, before you make unjust comments. As I said before, RHP is self-destructing....[/b]
22 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugts3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
1. Calling someone an idiot is in breach of the TOS as well .....
2. Having multiple accounts doesn't necessarily imply that someone is cheating....
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.
You have been in violation of the TOS, unequivocably. You were
called out by Russ, no small accomplishment.
You really have no place to make any arguments whatsoever,
given your complete lack of credibility.
For the record, I think he was calling you idiotic (that is
your action to make a second account). Since this is
demonstrably true (that doing so was idiotic), I don't think
it was an 'insult' to you, but commentary on your action.
As such, I don't think that the TOS can be used here;
insults are a part of this site. Making second accounts
ought not to be.
Nemesio
22 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rvugtsYour statements are very misleading. We all start at 1200; that's the rating we're assigned. Ragnorak rather quickly rose into the 1500's which is what you do when you win most of your initial games. If you continue to win most of your games your rating rises steadily over time, as his has done.
[b]how can you say ragnorak's curve looks anything like yours???...you went from being an average 1200 player to a 1900 player in no time at all
Yeah, it only took me about 230 games and 8 months to go from 1200 to 1900.
It took r ...[text shortened]... ake unjust comments. As I said before, RHP is self-destructing....[/b]
You, on the other hand, barely progressed at all in your early months. Grayeyes has posted some rather embarrassing losses of yours early and up to July 9, your rating was still only in the low 1200's. Then it immediately began a sharp and sustained rise.
I have given my criteria for those who I think should be investigated and one was a "A sharp and unexplained rise by an established player". Your profile states you hadn't played regularly in 20 years so that could explain some early losses, although the quality of the losses is pretty bad (before you look, I have some what I would consider bad losses too early but no early checkmates or hanging around in hopeless games like you did). Normally, I would consider you a borderline case for investigation but as you created a second account (violating the TOS) apparently to anonymously criticize the concept of the "cheat police" and then lied about it (I was being "paranoid'😉, I'd say that's pretty suspicious behavior, wouldn't you Rvugts/Fingolfin?????
22 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMy first games were against colleagues in an office environment, and were played very very quickly for fun (it was a new toy after all and there was nothing to lose yet), without any opening books or databases. After some rather embarassing losses I started to care more about the quality of my play, and started looking for websites with good chess advice and information on openings. I also tried to "specialise" on two standard openings (Queens gambit with white, and sicilian with black) and studied some games from some of the top guys on this site (LivingLegend for example).
...You, on the other hand, barely progressed at all in your early months. Grayeyes has posted some rather embarrassing losses of yours early and up to July 9, your rating was still only in the low 1200's. Then it immediately began a sharp and sustained rise.
More importantly, I also increased the amount of time I spend thinking per move and taught myself to double check my last move before I hit that move button. I also became a subscriber and started playing many more games.
Finally, the majority of my games (especially in the beginning ) is against people with a rating between 1200 and 1400, and even though you get fewer points per won game when your rating increases, these points do add up in the end.
I still play a huge part of my moves in the office (which is an openplan office and I'm surrounded by several RHP members), and if I was using an engine, my colleagues would surely have noticed by now...
The reason why I created that other account is because I wanted to anonymously comment on a particular comment by trackhead21 which I thought was worth pointing out, without getting my whole clan getting upset. It was dumb and I was caught, and got a slap on my wrist from Russ. That's all there is to it.
Seeying how some guys here have gone on another whichhunt without the cheat police having been fully established yet, just confirms my concerns about the way this "police" is being established. I'm not against the idea of a cheat police at all, but my god, you are opening a can of worms.
Looking at some of the last posts here I don't think that some of these volunteers have the professionalism to be worthy members of the cheat police. I for one, am rapidly losing my appetite for playing here, which is a shame because the site is beatifully made and there are some really nice players here....
22 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugtsI'm not sure I would characterize this as a "slap on the wrist":
My first games were against colleagues in an office environment, and were played very very quickly for fun (it was a new toy after all and there was nothing to lose yet), without any opening books or databases. After some rather embarassing losses I started to care more about the quality of my play, and started looking for websites with good chess advice and ...[text shortened]... h is a shame because the site is beatifully made and there are some really nice players here....
Log in as fingolfin again and all site access will be lost.
You certainly don't seem very apologetic about violating the TOS. "It was dumb and I was caught" doesn't sound very contrite to me.
Your explanations all seem reasonable to me and as the "cheat police" would require "overwhelming evidence" I don't see why you or anybody being investigated would be a problem. I have already stated that I personally would not rely solely on engine analysis or any one tool and I don't think the "cheat police" will. Your record, explanations, engine analysis and your conduct in this matter should all be explored.
Apparently most chess sites have some system for detecting and reducing engine use; I see no reason why the fact that this site is now doing the same should make any honest player lose his "appetite for playing here." One would think that knowing that engine use is being reduced would encourage, not discourage, such players. Finally, who will be on the "cheat police" has not yet been decided, but you'll pardon me if I say that someone who has violated the TOS here and then baldfaced lied about it is a poor judge of what constitutes "professionalism" in someone else.
22 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugtsOh,yeah,and while you were ''anonymously commenting on a particular comment by trackhead21'' you found the time to play (and to win) a game with your ''new'' account.
The reason why I created that other account is because I wanted to anonymously comment on a particular comment by trackhead21 which I thought was worth pointing out, without getting my whole clan getting upset. It was dumb and I was caught, and got a slap on my wrist from Russ. That's all there is to it.
This shows your intentions,you created the account to play,don't say bo***cks!
Luckily you were clever enough to get caught in the first 24 hours of life with your ''anonymous'' account,so you hadn't the time to play other games.
22 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugtsI don't see this whichhunt (sic?) that you're talking about. If you're talking about the posts directed at you as being a witch hunt, then think about what started them off...
Seeying how some guys here have gone on another whichhunt without the cheat police having been fully established yet, just confirms my concerns about the way this "police" is being established. I'm not against the idea of a cheat police at all, but my god, you are opening a can of worms.
Could it just be that you are an engine user yourself?
This would be more fitting of a witch hunt, than anything that has been directed your way after you posted this comment.
1 user said that u probably were an existing user. You were, despite saying that u weren't.
1 user said that you shouldn't be referring to the TOS in your defense seeing as you obviously pay it no heed
1 user (me) said that your motives and actions were questionable. They were.
Only 1 person has come out and said that u were cheating by opening a second account. Which is a proven fact. That means that the witch hunt against you which you refer to is less severe than the witch hunt that you are involved in against Trackhead. Don't be so hypocritical.
BTW: The reason your graph is so steep is because of the sheer polarisation in the quality of your play. From pre-patzer to GM in 200 odd games. I'll have to try to teach myself to 'double check' my moves.
D
22 Dec 04
Could we close this debate here, it's getting rather tired.
Perhaps on to:
What sort of percentage of players do you think could be cheating? Given that I can't beat a simple chess engine (Chess genius immediate setting), and reach the top 10%, those regularly cheating must be below 3%. What do you think?
Also if any players are proved cheater, and (C) applied I think, we should allow them to register with a new clean user name but repay the subs.
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by rvugtsThis is looking like that 'graceful exit' post we've all
Looking at some of the last posts here I don't think that some of these volunteers have the professionalism to be worthy members of the cheat police. I for one, am rapidly losing my appetite for playing here, which is a shame because the site is beatifully made and there are some really nice players here....
come to know and love...
Nemesio