Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 07:36:28 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
>There's no mention of the games themselves in your, except the vague statement >that Tiger was never really ahead. You focused on the results and the rating of >your opponent, nothing more. The games were posted the day they were played, >which hardly suggests a thorough and proper look. The rating of the two opponents has nothing to do with the game? Or the prospect of possible cheating? So if you ( rating unknown ) were to beat and draw Garry Kasparov ( 2851 ) no one would suspect a thing? Rating has nothing to do with it? Would that comment even be happening if the person playing was rated 1200? I don't think so. >Not having the decency to make sure that the name doesn't appear anywhere in the >text and failing to substantiate your suspicion with even a single move or >position, makes you actions look retaliatory instead of inquisitive from my >perspective. > >Calling yourself a serious beta tester doesn't entitle you to special rights >when it comes to unbased accusations or make you more important than any other >ordinary operator. And unless you're betatesting Rebel 12 already the title >sounds dubious as well. So by me being an official beta tester of the Rebel 11.0 package makes that sound dubious? How? I was a beta tester, and I have no reason to beleive that I wouldn't be testing Rebel Tiger 12.0 in the future. >>I am not a grumpy operator. I do not care whether is wins or losses. Really I >>don't. > >Judging from your review and several references here to how well Tiger plays on >ICS makes me doubt the truth in this statement. >Who doesn't. But that doesn't mean that you can report or aim your suspicion on >someone just because he beats your account and happens to have a low rating. >There are ethics to abide by for those who feel cheated as well. As I said, I forgot to take one place of his name out. I tried to conseal his identity. Didn't I already state that? >That's a nonsensical comparison. The program doesn't distinguish between (c) or >no (c) and change behaviour accordingly. You would, but you're not sitting at >the table. So whether or not the program can identify whether it is playing a (C) or not, really has something to do with the game? I don't think so. >If you were looking for an easy excuse to report someone then you're right, my >advice really isn't worth shit from your point of view. And since you also >jumped to conclusions in the previous cheater thread, when Bob gave a vague >opinion about the actions of the culprite, I'm not too worried about it. Mogens, take 5 minutes, go on to FICS, look at the games between my account and him, then look at the games before, and following the games. You will see two totally different players. I mean totally, they can not even be considered the same person. One made zero tactical errors, the other drops queens, rooks, bishops, for no apparent reason. If you can't see the obvious difference is playing styles, and obvious difference is strength, then this conversation is over. I watched several of his games last night, and I am convinced that he is not the same person or program that played my account. Instead of slamming me for coming here and posting the topic where I wanted what I feel is expert advice from here, go look. Trust me, you will see what I do.
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.