Author: Mike Castañuela
Date: 16:15:25 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 17:58:31, KarinsDad wrote: >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. Why not? it's a simple social service to the community of CCC. By other hand, talking about: Arrogance? who's the arrogant here? I only see too much puritanism, in trivial questions. Precisely, supposing a kid, why not post a simple nickname? Re-paragraphing to missing T. Czub: Slandering? Pah! :) (with humour) > >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.