Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:32:00 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 19:10:27, Jon Sveinsson wrote: > All what you say could be true but.... Even if there is a Fritz or a Hiarcs >or whatever running on the computer at the same time you are playing life >doesn´t neccessarily mean you are using it for life play analysis. You could >just as well be using it to check your E-mail response to a friend out of town. >There are too many variables in this equation for anybody to by remote controll >claime anything of what is going on in your computer at the same time you are >playing on-line. This is all true, and if they ONLY have Fritz running, and there is nothing else suspicious, then they probably won't do anything. If you had Fritz running, and you were beating people rated 600 points higher than you in fantastic fassion, that's probably not a coincidence. It's all a judgement call. I'm sure they don't go around banning every person who was caught with Fritz running in the background. They might look into it, and say, "Hey, don't do that again please." It could also be in their rules that you cannot have other chess software running while you are in particular areas, and if so, you can't blame them if they take actions against you. Besides, they don't have to let you connect to the computers that they own, just like you don't have to let anyone connect to your computer at home. If they wanted to start banning people that had names beginning with the letter A, they could do that. It wouldn't be good for business, but it wouldn't be illegal for them to do so. > The timeframe you mention could only be an indicator but not a fact and man >should act on fact and not possibilities or suspicions. If someone says he can >claime what you are using your computer to do while playing on-line as a fact, >he himself is lying. Regarding the time per move, that can certainly be "proof". For instance, if a player starts off moving at 15 seconds per move, and then gradually starts taking less and less time per move, and a formula can be derived that matches the players moving time, then that player is using a computer (I'm talking about an auto-playing system, like ICC, not sure if playchess.com is the same). It is simply impossible for a human player to follow such a formula exactly. Ok, it's not impossible, but you would be struck by lightning many times before this would happen. If you want to take the "you can never prove anything" attitude, then the same should go for all courts, and we should do away with the entire legal system, because we can never prove anything 100% for sure. Maybe you have video tape of a murder, and DNA evidence and they both point to one man as the killer. So what? The video could have been edited, and the DNA evidence could have been planted, and the 20 eye witnesses to the crime could have all been from a street gang looking to frame someone. You just have to use common sense sometimes, and this is one of those times.
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.