Author: Ian Osgood
Date: 20:40:04 08/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 1999 at 22:40:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 13, 1999 at 22:21:38, James T. Walker wrote: >[snip] >>Of course most of the Cheating is random or they would be caught easily. Don't >>look for reasons behind the cheating. There are none that make any sense. >If the cheating is random, either: >0. It will be rare enough to not affect their ELO much, in which case the >probablility of you facing such a cheater will not affect your ELO much. >1. It will be often enough to raise their ELO in a factor equivalent to the >probability of their cheating against you. > >The ELO system is self-healing, even against cheaters. I am IanO, maintainer of SapphireII. I haven't seen many likely instances of computer cheating against SapphireII. What I *do* see are people who find a loophole in Sapphire's opening book, and then repeat games against it using that same opening. People also have matched SapphireII with a zero inc time control, then played a stonewall-type opening, locking up the position and repeating moves behind their wall until SapphireII runs out of time (it takes a minimum of one second to respond). SapphireII has ditched a hundred points at a time through such tactics (until I get the abuser on my noplay list). I fight back with restrictive formulas. Ian
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.