Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 11 Jan '05 10:55 / 1 edit
    I have several serious questions/concerns about the ongoing game moderator ‘elections’:

    The ‘game moderator’ voting function does not appear to be very public…i.e. it’s difficult to find and does not seem to be well announced. 99.99% of RHP is either unaware that such a vote is taking place, or have chosen not to take part. Isn't it concerning that out of 75,000 members, only 300 (% 0.004) have voted so far?

    What qualifications and/or experience do the ‘nominated’ game moderators have?

    Will standard criteria be used to determine if a player is a “cheater”?

    If so, what are the criteria? Will they prove to be accurate in these determinations?

    How will the game moderators remain unbiased?
    (I suggest that being a member of one or more clans creates a huge conflict of interest?)

    How will it be decided which player(s) or which games to ‘monitor’?

    How accurate can this process really be? Clearly it’s impossible to monitor/analyze every player or game played at RHP.

    Thus, real scary part: how many actual ‘cheaters” will be caught, and how many innocent will be falsely accused and kicked off?

    Is there an (appeal) process in place than can be used to protect these falsely accused players?

    The best solution here: leave it to RHP….it’s their responsibility, their job. Obviously, due to the many, many man hours involved, for cost reasons alone, it makes sense for them to place it in the hands of a volunteers. But I find this somewhat irresponsible…really, shouldn’t they be doing their own dirty work?

    This whole idea runs the risk of resembling (or turning into) a ‘lynch mob’.

    I have a better idea…let’s just throw the accused into water to see if they float.

    Sincerely,
    Norm
  2. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    11 Jan '05 11:12
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I have several serious questions/concerns about the ongoing game moderator ‘elections’:

    The ‘game moderator’ voting function does not appear to be very public…i.e. it’s difficult to find and not seem to be well announced. I would guess 99.8% of RHP is unaware such a vote is taking place.
    (isn't it concerning that out of tens of thousands of members, on ...[text shortened]... a better idea…let’s just throw the accused into water to see if they float.

    Sincerely,
    Norm
    whats he matter are you afraid of them :-)?? And do you really think there are tens of thousand of active players on the site? 300+ voters is very good considering only 193 voted on whether there should be a cheat police. The only people who should have something to fear are those using engines everyone else is happy to have something to protect them. Im on my way to work so i'll answer some of your oher qustions when I get there, you really need to read one of the threads on the mods though to learn more.
  3. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    11 Jan '05 11:43 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I have several serious questions/concerns about the ongoing game moderator 'elections'

    The 'game moderator' voting function does not appear to be very public i.e. it's difficult to find and does not seem to be well announced. 99.99% of RHP is either unaware that such a vote is taking place, or have chosen not to take part. Isn't it concerning that out of 75,000 members, only 300 (% 0.004) have voted so far?

    the 300 most active and aware players.
    What qualifications and/or experience do the 'nominated' game moderators have?
    they are interested, caring and capable chess players of varying experience.
    Will standard criteria be used to determine if a player is a 'cheater'?
    when fishing: different hooks are required for different fish.
    If so, what are the criteria? Will they prove to be accurate in these determinations?
    one criteria is matching the moves nade by chess programs ... this of course is open to consideration and opinion ... the best interpreters are required .. which is what this vote is about.
    How will the game moderators remain unbiased?
    (I suggest that being a member of one or more clans creates a huge conflict of interest?)

    russ will be watching over the top and advised by all and sundry ... the moderators will be watched more closely than anyone else.
    How will it be decided which player(s) or which games to 'monitor'?
    the more the better ... the suspicious players will be investigated ... there are hundreds of us playing and looking and listening .... we will be suspicious when we want to be .. then the cheat police can just tell us to shut up ... or they can act.
    How accurate can this process really be? Clearly it's impossible to monitor/analyze every player or game played at RHP.
    it will never be perfect .. but the best must be done.
    Thus, real scary part: how many actual 'cheaters' will be caught, and how many innocent will be falsely accused and kicked off?
    hopefully the computer-cheaters who disrupt the games of the humans will be caught, and no innocent bystanders will suffer.
    Is there an (appeal) process in place than can be used to protect these falsely accused players?
    i imagine there will be ... don't you?
    The best solution here: leave it to RHP it';s their responsibility, their job. Obviously, due to the many, many man hours involved, for cost reasons alone, it makes sense for them to place it in the hands of a volunteers. But I find this somewhat irresponsible, really, shouldn't they be doing their own dirty work?
    russ descibes himself as the "code mokey" ... lets leave him there ... he keeps doing nice things in codeland ... have a look at his chess rating ... let the chess players do the chess stuff.
    This whole idea runs the risk of resembling (or turning into) a 'lynch mob'.

    I have a better idea let's just throw the accused into water to see if they float.

    Sincerely,
    Norm


    hmmm, maybe your idea is not so good.
  4. Standard member Gatecrasher
    Whale watching
    11 Jan '05 11:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I have several serious questions/concerns about the ongoing game moderator ‘elections’:

    The ‘game moderator’ voting function does not appear to be very public…i.e. it’s difficult to find and does not seem to be well announced. 99.99% of ...[text shortened]... w the accused into water to see if they float.

    Sincerely,
    Norm
    Lots of good questions.

    300+ votes is pretty good. 75000 people have registered, but only a fraction of those subscribers.

    The important thing is that the process has begun. Many of the questions you ask will be tackled by the Game Moderators once they become functional. It's like the chicken and the egg, which comes first? Procedures and standards and criteria, etc will have to be decided upon by the game mods if they are to become effective and trusted.

    Russ/Chrismo do not run a great corporate empire. Most of what goes on here is for our own benefit. And our subs just about cover the running costs.

    I believe the standard of proof will be set quite high. The chances that a cheater will be found "innocent" will be infintely higher than the chances that an innocent person is found "guilty."

    But remember we are talking about a game, and membership of RHP. That's what is at stake. No prison terms, or death by lethal injection. So if the system results in any injustice, the damage will hardly be life-threatening.

    On the other hand, the potential benefits of the Game Moss idea for honest players, and RHP in general, is immense.
  5. 11 Jan '05 11:57
    Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21
    whats he matter are you afraid of them :-)?? And do you really think there are tens of thousand of active players on the site? 300+ voters is very good considering only 193 voted on whether there should be a cheat police. The only people who should have something to fear are those using engines everyone else is happy to have something to protect them. Im ...[text shortened]... s when I get there, you really need to read one of the threads on the mods though to learn more.
    Trackhead-

    I realize that you are strongly in favor of the idea, but of course you do have much to gain if elected as one of the 'game moderators'..i.e. prestige/influence/power.

    Am I afraid? Absolutely. Afraid that a game moderator (perhaps you?) will falsely (mistakenly) accuse innocent people.

    I'm concerned about fairness...there's enough injustice in the world already, and it's clear that the 'cheat police' will be nothing more than an amateur 'posse'.

    If I've missed a previous thread, which outlines the process and demonstrates it's fairness and accuracy, my apologies. please direct me to the link.

    Thx-
    Norm
  6. 11 Jan '05 12:31
    Kranium,

    Not to change the subject, BUT; Didn't you used to have in your profile a statement saying that you had programmed your own chess engine, a "tactical chess engine" and that you used it sometimes?

    I don't ask in order to accuse you, I ask because I would like to get a look at the source code; just for my own entertainment as a fellow programmer.

    Tim
  7. Standard member Dalamar
    Lord of the Board...
    11 Jan '05 12:46
    I think the true source of this thread is that humans (ie game moderators) also make mistakes...and that assigning such prestige and power to an individual is making it open to abuse. Game moderators can be corrupted (Not that I am saying that they will)


    Personally I have nothing to fear, I err so much anyway that the game moderators will probably fall over laughing!
  8. Standard member Toe
    11 Jan '05 13:06
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I have several serious questions/concerns about the ongoing game moderator ‘elections’:
    ...
    Sincerely,
    Norm
    read thread
    http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16944
    There are other similarly long threads on these issues all over the forums. Due to the serious nature of the conerns raised, there is no 'executive summary' thread with nice easy answers.
  9. 11 Jan '05 13:09
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    Kranium,

    Not to change the subject, BUT; Didn't you used to have in your profile a statement saying that you had programmed your own chess engine, a "tactical chess engine" and that you used it sometimes?

    I don't ask in order to accuse you, I ask because I would like to get a look at the source code; just for my own entertainment as a fellow programmer.

    Tim
    Yes...it's a program named Alderon, and often runs on the ICC.
  10. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    11 Jan '05 13:28
    Originally posted by Gatecrasher
    Lots of good questions.

    300+ votes is pretty good. 75000 people have registered, but only a fraction of those subscribers.

    The important thing is that the process has begun. Many of the questions you ask will be tackled by the Game Moderators once they become functional. It's like the chicken and the egg, which comes first? Procedures and stan ...[text shortened]... he potential benefits of the Game Moss idea for honest players, and RHP in general, is immense.
    Dang we gotta get this guy more votes. It would be very sad if gatecrasher doesnt end up as a moderator. Maybe if Russ took cheshire cat off you could get more, i mean cheshire has been gone for a bit now. Mephisto2 also asked to withdraw from the list though I would like to see him stay.
  11. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    11 Jan '05 13:40
    Originally posted by Kranium
    Trackhead-

    I realize that you are strongly in favor of the idea, but of course you do have much to gain if elected as one of the 'game moderators'..i.e. prestige/influence/power.

    Am I afraid? Absolutely. Afraid that a game moderator (perhaps you?) will falsely (mistakenly) accuse innocent people.

    I'm concerned about fairness...there's enough i ...[text shortened]... strates it's fairness and accuracy, my apologies. please direct me to the link.

    Thx-
    Norm
    I was strongly in favor of the idea before it was even an idea and would still be strongly in favor of it even if I didn't have a high amount of votes. The game mods job is not to accuse people of cheating maybe you meant that they will mistakenly find an innocent person guilty. I agree with gatecrasher when he said it is much more likely that a cheater will be found innocent than an innocent person being found guilty. Have seen some people think that their is gonna be so much power in being a cheat moderator but I think people are forgetting that it isnt one person running the cheat mods it will be atleast 3 people, hopefully 5 so one person won't be able to do whatever they want. These people will also be respected and trusted players whom the members vote for, which is taking clear shape in the voting. I am very happy to see 300+ votes and was really hoping for 500 though I think 350 will be the best we will do.
  12. 11 Jan '05 15:31 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21
    I was strongly in favor of the idea before it was even an idea and would still be strongly in favor of it even if I didn't have a high amount of votes. The game mods job is not to accuse people of cheating maybe you meant that they wil ...[text shortened]... lly hoping for 500 though I think 350 will be the best we will do.
    Hi Trackhead

    May I quickly ask how you managed to beat XxFeArUsA1xX (who no longer has an account there) on uchess.com. I can do quite well against IM's and GM's on blitz chess, but had no chance against him, probably because he was using Deep Fritz.

    The win I am referring to occured on the 13th of September 2004 which can be seen your perfect profile of 42 wins 0 draws 0 losses:-
    http://www.uchess.com/viewprofile.php?userid=2637

    Just from an educational perspective, please can you let everyone know what kind of strategy and tactics you used, and opening choices, to be able to take the point of this player. I am not implying you are an engine-user, I am just wanting to learn what anti-computer approach you used on Uchess to be able to win against him?

    You also implied on the Uchess forums, that you knew how to play against programs, which added to my curiosity at the time - this thread seemed to be started soon after your victory against the aforementioned player. The thread can be found here: http://www.uchess.com/forumviewthread.php?forumid=1&threadid=186

    Best wishes
    Tryfon Gavriel
    Fide 2160
  13. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    11 Jan '05 17:10
    Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
    Hi Trackhead

    May I quickly ask how you managed to beat XxFeArUsA1xX (who no longer has an account there) on uchess.com. I can do quite well against IM's and GM's on blitz chess, but had no chance against him, probably because he was using Deep Fritz.

    The win I am referring to occured on the 13th of September 2004 which can be seen your perfec ...[text shortened]... .uchess.com/forumviewthread.php?forumid=1&threadid=186

    Best wishes
    Tryfon Gavriel
    Fide 2160
    Good to know he doesnt have an account there anymore. Funny how sometimes people bring up that I was accused of using an engine on uchess but leave out that it was after I posted that he was using an engine and also the name of the person who said it. From my memory the only reason I beat him was because he ran himself low on time with the engine and started playing for himself and making mistakes. Aside from opening he was giving me plenty of thinking time on his turns. I do know there are ways to play anti-computer especially in blitz chess to win on time but I didn't play that way as thats something I never picked up and I think its a sad way to play. Didn't know it was possible to see game, was a good while ago gotta take a look when I get home from work. The other talk about the engine beating stuff was just a bit of trash talking directed at xxfearusa1xx. Most of the new engines out now I am lucky if I draw against them and will usually lose. Still have yet to get a draw against deep junior 9 :-(. I guess we could all learn to play anti-computer to battle engines but since it mostly only works in timed games wouldn't be of much use on this site.
  14. 11 Jan '05 17:36
    Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21
    ... From my memory the only reason I beat him was because he ran himself low on time with the engine and started playing for himself and making mistakes. Aside from opening he was giving me plenty of thinking time on his turns. I do know there are ways to play anti-computer especially in blitz chess to win on time but I didn't play that way as thats something I never picked up and I think its a sad way to play....
    I beat Crouchy in 1997 on the ICC- I was quite proud of the win -and added it to my ICC personal game library, because I felt it demonstrated quite well anti-computer style play. I chose a rock solid London system, which later transposed into a Stonewall variation. The tactical ideas was simply to keep as solid as possible, and blow the computers king defences up, after first building up pressure there. Here was the game in question:-

    [Event "ICC 3 0"]
    [Site "Internet Chess Club"]
    [Date "1997.05.20"]
    [Round "-"]
    [White "KingsCrusher"]
    [Black "grouchy"]
    [Result "1-0"]
    [ICCResult "Black checkmated"]
    [WhiteElo "2447"]
    [BlackElo "2805"]
    [Opening "Queen's bishop game"]
    [ECO "D02"]
    [NIC "QP.08"]
    [Time "15:30:31"]
    [TimeControl "180+0"]

    1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 O-O 6. Nbd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8.
    Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. f4 Qc8 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bh4 Be7 13. Rf3 Rac8 14. Rh3 h6
    15. g4 Rfe8 16. g5 hxg5 17. Bxg5 Rcd8 18. Qf3 Rc8 19. Qf2 g6 20. Qh4 Nh5 21.
    Nxg6 fxg6 22. Bxg6 Bxg5 23. Qxg5 Ng7 24. Qh6 Kf8 25. Qh8+ Ke7 26. Qxg7+ Kd8
    27. Qxc7+ Kxc7 28. Bxe8 Rxe8 29. Rh7+ Ne7 30. Kf2 Kd6 31. Rg1 cxd4 32. cxd4
    Bc6 33. Nf3 a5 34. Ne5 Bb5 35. Rgg7 Ba6 36. f5 exf5 37. Rh6+ Kc7 38. Re6 Kd8
    39. Rexe7 Rxe7 40. Nc6+ Kd7 41. Nxe7 Ke6 42. Nc6 Kf6 43. Ra7 Bc4 44. b3 Bd3
    45. Ne5 Bb1 46. a3 Ke6 47. h4 f4 48. exf4 Bc2 49. b4 axb4 50. axb4 Bf5 51.
    h5 Kd6 52. h6 Bc2 53. h7 Bxh7 54. Rxh7 Ke6 55. Kf3 b5 56. Kg4 Kf6 57. Rh6+
    Kg7 58. Rb6 Kf8 59. f5 Kg8 60. Rb7 Kh8 61. Kg5 Kg8 62. Kf6 Kh8 63. Kg6 Kg8
    64. Rb8# {Black checkmated} 1-0

    Grouchy is quite a weak engine now compared to modern engines, and especially if we are talking about Deep Fritz. I would be lucky to last past 30 moves against Fritz I think, and that was clearly demonstrated in my two losses vs xxFearusaxx. Impressive that you last 79 moves against him, before finally winning on time, especially without any clear anti-computer approach. In open tactical positions, and especially in blitz chess, I do not think humans have much chances anymore. This is one reason that it is especially important on places like ICC and Chessbase that engine-monitoring is fully in place, when playing against non (C) accounts.
  15. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    11 Jan '05 18:12
    Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
    I beat Crouchy in 1997 on the ICC- I was quite proud of the win -and added it to my ICC personal game library, because I felt it demonstrated quite well anti-computer style play. I chose a rock solid London system, which later transposed into a Stonewall variation. The tactical ideas was simply to keep as solid as possible, and blow the computers king ...[text shortened]... C and Chessbase that engine-monitoring is fully in place, when playing against non (C) accounts.
    79 moves? are you sure about that? No way the game went that long especially with his pointless moves toward the end just trying to catch up on time. Or do you mean 79 between the 2 games we played? I've never had a game go that long. 61 is my longest here and that was against a very good opponent in no1maruder. And yes stonewall is it, though there are many different variations. Couldnt think of what it was before but that is the anti-computer way to play. I love chessbase, used to like ICC.