Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 03:59:37 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 05:47:36, Thomas Mayer wrote: >well, I do not care much about those cheaters. Just when I see some obvious >things I put them on my noplay list. (Usually 7 day accounts...) I avoid abuse by guest accounts by having "established" in Symbolic's formula. I'd prefer it otherwise, but there was just too much trouble with non-established players. >Anyway, when Quark plays on ICC I want to see it play - I do not care much about >it's rating... Loosing against a cheater means anyway that there was something >stronger then my own program so I had to look where things went wrong instead >"is the opponent cheating". I'm not too much concerned about the magnitude of Symbolic's rating; it's accuracy that I want. This is necessary to measure the effects of program changes. One false result from a cheater may take a half dozen or more games to correct. >P.S.: So in my opinion you can either take a lot of time to identify cheaters, >keeping your noplay list up to date etc. without any chance to get them all, or >you can simply ignore it. IMO the second is best. I don't have to take a lot of time if the effort is shared by others.
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.