Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:18:22 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 17:25:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 15:08:50, Côme wrote: > >>On November 14, 2000 at 13:11:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2000 at 13:00:53, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2000 at 12:54:00, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 12:18:05, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>After move 18 there is _no_ improvement. I have no doubts about wicker-man being >>>>>>a computer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Being rated on ICC at 1800 is like being rated about 1400-1500 on FICS. There is >>>>>>almost no possible way for that type player to beat todays programs. I would >>>>>>inform speedtrap of his actions. >>>>> >>>>>That's a very speculative foundation for reporting another player. If he did the >>>>>same against human opposition, his rating probably wouldn't be as low as it is. >>>>>Besides, what's the big deal in cheating on a computer program. >>>>> >>>>>Mogens. >>>> >>>>It´s a big deal because the program expects to play a human opponent and when >>>>the person who is running the (C)(in this case Rebel Tiger) analyzes the games >>>>played against humans, he will analyze this game too and import it to a database >>>>with all human opponents. So, he will get wrong results.. Allthough, it´s just >>>>one game but if everybody cheats, then the results against humans will be >>>>completly worthless. IMO >>>> >>>>Alvaro >>> >>> >>>If you play 1800-level players on ICC, FICS or chess.net, this is just a fact >>>of life. You _are_ going to play computer cheaters. There are far more >>>cheaters at the lower ratings (there are also far more players down there too, >>>of course). >>> >>>It is a huge problem... >> >>Hello ! >>Wrong again I think. >>How is it possible to have 1800 if you cheat with a computer ? >>If you cheat you have a much higer rating. >>Best Regards >>Alexandre Côme > > >Easy. 5 years ago, you would be correct. But high ratings now draw a lot of >attention. You will find that there are just as many cheaters with low ratings >as there are with high ratings. They just pick and choose who they cheat >against. I have seen more than one such person get caught, where they >were cheating in only an occasional game here and there. But the ICC guys >try all the commercial programs in their analysis, and they found a 100% >match between this cheater and one specific commercial program, but only in >about 1 of every 4-5 games... > >He was playing 17-1800 players and playing reasonably close. He would >occasionally play a 2100-2300 player and win easily. A pattern emerged... Why is this thread about cheating? Someone beats a computer and it's cheater cheater cheater. And the guy's ICC name was featured in the original post, so he is being tarred with this. The guy isn't a cheater. He's someone who played a decent attack against a computer and it worked. I like to play against computers sometimes, and I would hate it if I had to deal with a 100-response thread about how some people only cheat sometimes, about how cheating is a huge problem, about how hard it is to detect cheaters, the mate in 7 nonsense, and so on. If this thread should be about anything, it should be about not letting the opponent play f6 when there aren't any good defenders and the enemy queen is in the vicinity. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.