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

Tournaments Forum

  1. 12 Dec '04 20:07
    Like most on this site I hate the thought that I'm playing a computer, could we (likeminded players) perhaps police this ourselves by verifying each other (in face to face! games). Obviously geography plays a factor in this but it can grow from players of various regional players buying into it. It all falls down if:

    1. Russ doesn't buy into the idea of allowing tournaments for 'verified' players only.
    2. You tell me if there are any other flaws

    What do you think?
  2. Standard member mrmist
    Moo
    12 Dec '04 20:09
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    Like most on this site I hate the thought that I'm playing a computer, could we (likeminded players) perhaps police this ourselves by verifying each other (in face to face! games). Obviously geography plays a factor in this but it can grow from players of various regional players buying into it. It all falls down if:

    1. Russ doesn't buy into the idea ...[text shortened]... or 'verified' players only.
    2. You tell me if there are any other flaws

    What do you think?
    Kinda defeats the point of correspondence chess though eh? 😉
  3. 12 Dec '04 20:15
    Originally posted by mrmist
    Kinda defeats the point of correspondence chess though eh? 😉
    No I mean verify ONCE face to face then play correspondence chess as normal on this site, therefore eliminating (hopefully) people who do not play to their rating. Although I must say that my rapid (if you can call it that in 15/15 games) rating tends to hover between 1450 to 1550 which is about 200 points less than my correspondence rating but that's because I do spend a lot of time trying to analyse the position and get my next move right (a luxury not available in a rapid game).
  4. 12 Dec '04 20:19 / 1 edit
    James Woodley if you are reading this do you ever get to London? if so do you fancy a face to face game? we are rated quite close and i think perhaps my rapid game is well behind my correspondance game so you shopuld if anything have a slight edge. It would give you the chance to quieten your critics? how about it?
  5. 12 Dec '04 20:43
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    James Woodley if you are reading this do you ever get to London? if so do you fancy a face to face game? we are rated quite close and i think perhaps my rapid game is well behind my correspondance game so you shopuld if anything have a slight edge. It would give you the chance to quieten your critics? how about it?
    Or perhaps I'm being carried away as it may be logistically quite time consuming (but surely enjoyable as we are all chess players) so maybe we could verify only suspected cheaters with trusted 'testers'?
  6. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    12 Dec '04 22:01
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    Like most on this site I hate the thought that I'm playing a computer, could we (likeminded players) perhaps police this ourselves by verifying each other (in face to face! games). Obviously geography plays a factor in this but it can grow from players of various regional players buying into it. It all falls down if:

    1. Russ doesn't buy into the idea ...[text shortened]... or 'verified' players only.
    2. You tell me if there are any other flaws

    What do you think?
    It isn't practical to use that idea as a system. However, there are other things that can be done. I have pages of this stuff so I can't list everything, but here's just a couple:

    1) Administrators should have access to the player's real name.
    2) Every player should post their rating along with their profile from whatever chess organization they belong to. The rating can be a year old, but there needs to be one.

    Some comments about this: Most players who are really good either belongs to a chess organization or have belonged to one. Players at RHP might play one class above their OTB rating, but you will not see a 1300 rated player beating class A players! If a player can't post a rating then he is "Not Rated". "Not Rated" players are players whose ability cannot be verified. This would give their opponents the option of not playing them!

    -arrakis
  7. Standard member mrmist
    Moo
    12 Dec '04 22:06
    Originally posted by arrakis


    Some comments about this: Most players who are really good either belongs to a chess organization or have belonged to one. Players at RHP might play one class above their OTB rating, but you will not see a 1300 rated player beating class A players! If a player can't post a rating then he is "Not Rated". "Not Rated" players are players whose ability ...[text shortened]... cannot be verified. This would give their opponents the option of not playing them!

    -arrakis
    Maybe. But I've no interest in playing for a chess organization, or taking part in club tournaments, hence I have no real rating. I fail to see why that should disqualify me from actively taking part in this site, which I would pay the same subscription for as a "rated" player.

    So it's kinda unfair. This is meant to be a site that's a bit of fun, not a selective trial thingy.
  8. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    12 Dec '04 22:10
    Originally posted by arrakis
    It isn't practical to use that idea as a system. However, there are other things that can be done. I have pages of this stuff so I can't list everything, but here's just a couple:

    1) Administrators should have access to the player's real name.
    2) Every player should post their rating along with their profile from whatever chess organization they belo ...[text shortened]... cannot be verified. This would give their opponents the option of not playing them!

    -arrakis
    I don't have an OTB rating. Are u saying that I be excluded from games?

    D
  9. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    12 Dec '04 22:18
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I don't have an OTB rating. Are u saying that I be excluded from games?

    D
    No, but I am saying that if listed as "Not Rated" (which means your ability cannot be substantiated) that players should have a choice if they don't want to play you. They have that choice anyways, so this is just giving more information to the members about you. A with more information can make a better decision by looking at your profile, graph and games. The advantages of this greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
  10. Standard member rhb
    Ginger Scum
    12 Dec '04 23:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by arrakis
    No, but I am saying that if listed as "Not Rated" (which means your ability cannot be substantiated) that players should have a choice if they don't want to play you. They have that choice anyways, so this is just giving more information ...[text shortened]... games. The advantages of this greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
    This wouldnt work in clans and tournaments as games are not always chosen by the players concerned. I would be interested to know what % of games total is clan/tourney as opposed to open invite.

    I agree something needs to be done, however my hobby here is correspondence chess & my ability as such is substantiated by my performance on this site. OTB is not for me - I have other hobbies for my time away from this site - I shouldn't therefore be limited in who I can play against because of this, neither should others in a similar position.

    Maybe it would have a use as a tool for the upcoming game 'cheat police' - to be able to request/view such details for a player who's graph shows suspect signs (in many cases a genuine player would have already posted the info for view perhaps?) - it is not a suitable solution for verfying all users of the site though.
  11. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    14 Dec '04 02:39
    Originally posted by rhb
    This wouldnt work in clans and tournaments as games are not always chosen by the players concerned. I would be interested to know what % of games total is clan/tourney as opposed to open invite.

    I agree something needs to be done, however my hobby here is correspondence chess & my ability as such is substantiated by my performance on this site. OTB is not for ...[text shortened]... fo for view perhaps?) - it is not a suitable solution for verfying all users of the site though.
    Any additional information about a player, whether it is only for the cheat police or the members, is definitely a big advantage to stop computer cheaters.
  12. 14 Dec '04 08:35
    Originally posted by arrakis
    No, but I am saying that if listed as "Not Rated" (which means your ability cannot be substantiated) that players should have a choice if they don't want to play you. They have that choice anyways, so this is just giving more information to the members about you. A with more information can make a better decision by looking at your profile, graph and games. The advantages of this greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
    It kind of defeats the idea of paying to play on a chess site, when no-one will play you though.
    I do not have a rating, as I have never belonged to any chess organization.
    My rating has never gotten above the 1400's. I play for fun and enjoy my chess (win, lose or draw).
    I have played over 750 games here at RHP and intend to play many more.

    Please do not try to spoil the enjoyment for people like myself by seeking to impose such rules.

    Regards
    Dave
  13. Standard member Gatecrasher
    Whale watching
    14 Dec '04 09:15 / 1 edit
    I played OTB for my school 25 years ago. I once placed 4th in a county schools competition in 1979. You see my problem? No OTB rating.

    I've only started playing chess again since February when I joined RHP.

    Requiring OTB ratings on RHP doesn't seem practical. Besides, I ONLY play clan and tournament chess. The last open invite game I played was in June.

    We are here to have fun. So while I'm all for weeding out cheaters, this idea is just way to odious.

    EDIT: Sorry, forgot to link to arrakis' post.
  14. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    14 Dec '04 14:16
    Originally posted by arrakis
    It isn't practical to use that idea as a system. However, there are other things that can be done. I have pages of this stuff so I can't list everything, but here's just a couple:

    1) Administrators should have access to the player's real name.
    2) Every player should post their rating along with their profile from whatever chess organization they belo ...[text shortened]... cannot be verified. This would give their opponents the option of not playing them!

    -arrakis
    I kind of like the non-rated idea. Though for my own personal reasons I would not like anyone knowing my real name other than the charles, which is my middle name, and I would also keep my name non-rated. The only thing is, what about players who come on here to relax and simply have fun. People who don't want anyone to know their OTB rating or their rating with any organization they belong to. While I truthfully do have an OTB rating and USCF rating, I normally tell people that I don't. I like to remain just an anonymous player on a correspondence chess site where chess is fun instead of about competition, stress and headaches. Would it be fair to people like that to have some thinking ill of them because they are non-rated?
  15. Standard member pendejo
    GTX
    14 Dec '04 18:13
    Originally posted by stevetodd
    No I mean verify ONCE face to face then play correspondence chess as normal on this site, therefore eliminating (hopefully) people who do not play to their rating. Although I must say that my rapid (if you can call it that in 15/15 games) rating tends to hover between 1450 to 1550 which is about 200 points less than my correspondence rating but that's bec ...[text shortened]... ing to analyse the position and get my next move right (a luxury not available in a rapid game).
    im sure ian93 would be happy to verify jw's chess skills otb

    problem with this is that a cheater could open up a dummy account and make false verifications.