Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:27:09 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 14:53:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 24, 1999 at 13:33:59, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On August 24, 1999 at 13:13:39, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 1999 at 12:45:30, Terry Presgrove wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 1999 at 08:28:48, Shep wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 1999 at 04:02:10, rich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>First of all, how can you know for sure this person is a cheater? >>>>>>Innocent until found guilty, anyone ?!? >>>>>>Second, I can't find any evidence in any of the posts in this thread. >>>>>>Third, maybe all of you just can't realize that some unrated players >>>>>>are very good chessplayers.I have myself beaten a GM once(I'm 1761 club-rating) >>>>> >>>>>Seconded. I happen to have quite a few friends who haven't played in rated >>>>>tournaments in years (so they have no current ELO/USCF/DWZ rating whatsoever), >>>>>yet still manage to play close to - and sometimes above - master strength. >>>>> >>>>>I think if that happens for about a dozen people I know, how many of them can >>>>>you meet in a crowded club such as ICC? Don't take the equation >>>>>"unrated=beginner" for granted. >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Shep >>>> >>>> Hi Shep >>>> >>>> I agree with you that there are allot of very good unrated players >>>> that are capable of winning against top programs. But three in a row in blitz >>>> 5 5 using tactics without anti-computer techniques? Never using less than 3 >>>> seconds in the 3 0 game log is building up considerable evidence. Plus you >>>> have the experience of the operator who has watched thousands of comp vs. >>>> human games stretching over three decades. I'm not saying it is impossible but >>>> you would have to use scientific notation to compute the odds. I do agree a >>>> player is innocent until proven guilty and am opposed to using names/handles >>>> in an accusing manner in this forum unless there is clear condemning evidence >>>> presented. >>> >>>The real question is why do we even care about this, the games are meaningless, >>>the ratings are meaningless. Nothing people post, say, or do will stop people >>>from cheating. What do you expect from games played over the internet. >>> >>>I get hit all the time by people cheating with computers when I am testing a new >>>program online, but it does not make much sense to bitch about it on CCC, or >>>make protest after protest to the admin of fics or icc etc. I have better things >>>to do with my time, like play more chess:) >>> >> >> I also do not understand why people care so much about cheaters and ratings in >>on-line chess servers. >> I can see why the FIDE rating is important for professional players (higher >>rating implies more invitations to better tournaments), but rating points in >>chess servers seem completely worthless. >> Nobody is going to give one gram of tea for each rating point you have in a >>chess server, and if somebody does please tell me because I would be interested >>in that deal (: >> > >you are wrong there. On the servers, during events, people look at the ones >that are kibitzing analysis, and they take comments from a 2200+ player much >more seriously than they do comments from a 1600 player. So this boils down >to 'respect' even if it isn't 'deserved.'... > >that's mainly what it is about... you know that everyone will notice your >high rating and think you are a good player, whether you are or not... So it boils down to EGO...on both sides. Heaven forbid a 1600 rated player getting the respect of +2200 player on a chess server. And I thought it was just stupid for people to waste their time making web pages and posting such nonsense in a rant against cheaters on chess servers. But your words have shown me just how important this cause should be to all of us. > > > > >>>> >>>> TP
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.