Author: odell hall
Date: 02:52:28 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Sarah I am confused about some aspects of your response to paulos, I hope that you can clear them up for me. Here is your reply to paulos question number 1 1. I still did not understand because much people are >>criticizing Odell if he only wrote that he was been deceptive. > >What people have criticized is the use of a persons name or handle when there is >no proof that the person cheated. > Here you say that no proof is given, Yet further down in your answer to paulos number 4 when paulos reaffirms his belief that I played against fritz5 you agree with him. Here is the text > 3. I confirmed the simulation today. Fritz 5.32 accompanies >>the opening, and all moves of the game are equal. I agree with >>KarinsDad when he writes that 100% are strange, and altough I >>confirmed the moves, it's only a simulation, made in different >>systems and with also different times. On the other hand, the >>coincidence is so much, that I reaffirm that Odell played against >>Fritz5.32. > >I would agree however would add, that I would prefer to see more than just one >game. > My question to you is How can you say that no proof was given, yet agree with paulos that it was fritz5 that was used? What's even more confusing in this whole matter is that The principal critic of my decision to reveal the handle of the cheater States in a post that there is overwelming proof (99%) Here is the text of that Post 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 :( I don't think I have heard anyone hear say with any confidence that they do not believe that the person used a computer, Yet I continue to hear that no proof was given! If there was no proof, then why does everyone believe that the person was guilty.
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.