Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:58:31 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 17:07:49, odell hall wrote: [snip] > >KarinsDad > > >I am Starting to Question your motives in all this. You are conviently leaving >out information when you respond to post. For instance you make statements like > >>What Paulo did was supply supporting data for Odell's suspicion. He did not >>prove anything. > > > Yet in previous post I said that I had done my own investigation, and saw for >myself that Fritz5 matched the game 100%, anyone here can verify this. My apologies Odell. I was not trying to leave anything out. You did post that, but in the large number of posts, I had forgotten that you had eventually said that. >Apparently you have not yet when over the game yourself, or you would know that >it is a perfect match. It is not only one aspect of the evidece that damning >but the total picture. I will repeat it again 1. uscf 752, yet this person >defeats several 2500 rated computers 2. A perfect Fritz5 match in the moves 3. >Bruce moreland's examination of the times per move (which he evaluated as very >computerly) another expert confirmed also that the times per move is >relevanant. Actually, this is true as well. The times do appear to be computer like, especially up to move 15 for black. However, I am not the only person "dropping" information. Bruce mentioned in that same post that the account was new and the person may not know the computer rules. But you still label him as a cheater. You are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt (not of breaking the ICS rules, but of attributing motivations to what he is doing). You have never mentioned that it was a new account, but you are positive that you have all of the facts. That is the problem with accusing people of things. In our arrogance, we often miss things. Let's take a look at what facts have been shown. 1) Chances are fairly high (99.99+%) that he used a computer. 2) He has a new account. 3) He gave you a name that corresponds to a 752 rated player. 4) He won the game. Is it not possible that this is a 10 year old kid who doesn't know all of the rules for ICS and is having fun playing his program against others on the Internet? He may not know that it isn't allowed without the (C). But here are a bunch of adults on a different forum "condemning" him for being a "cheater". How arrogant? How unnecessary? How silly? I am not saying that he did not use a computer, he probably did. I am saying that it isn't right to name him on this forum. KarinsDad :( > If this does not constitute "Proof" for you then you do not believe [snip]
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.