Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:34:59 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 14:55:02, Terry Presgrove 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 understand your frustration with ICC & FICS on how they deal with > cheaters. You mentioned testing new programs, my question is how can you > get an accurate determination of the programs strength if ratings don't > mean anything? You can't get an *accurate* rating online, and I never claimed you could.... This is not caused by cheaters, but how the servers rating system is setup, and how players can pick and choose the other players they play. There has to be some standard whereby we gauge playing > strength? Right and its the rating system, but it does not work accurately on a chess server. At best we can hope to get a gereral idea who might be better, but with a 150 to 200 point margin of error. If ratings don't mean anything on ICC then what would happen > if you didn't have any? I guess people would stop playing chess, because without that number by their name on a CHESS SERVER there is no reason to play chess. Cheaters skew the ratings Cheaters SKEW the ratings, I guess this would be true if the player did not use the program every game. A player cheating with a computer does not skew the ratings if he cheats all the time. If skewed ratings are your problem on chess servers...then your aimming at the wrong target. and while its true > no matter what you do there will always be some, No, no matter what you do there will always be more cheater. Who can resist using computers when playing online with the software and hardware we have today and it is only get worse as prices fall and the products get better and faster. I even heard a IM was caught cheating with a computer. I do think you can't > just give up on this issue because if we do then there is no reference > for determining playing strength and improvement for human or program > on whatever chess server we play on. Not true, because what is more important then the rating is the games themselves in terms of what it teaches the programmer or player about his game or the programs game. It does not matter to me if I lose to a cheater or not, the point is I lost and I need to find out who I can improve, the same can be said for the program and programmer. But lets not be coy, the ratings on chess servers is not about improvement of ones chess skills...its about ego...and that ok, who would not love to have a high rating, but the way the rating system works on a chess server the number is meaningless because many peoples ego has cause them to skew the ratings in many different ways. I do not agree that the games are > meaningless They are meaningless...in terms if you lost to a cheater or not. Because it changes nothing of meaning. I could care less if you for example were rated 1000 or 3000 on a chess server and I don't know many people who would care. 99% of the people online playing on the chess servers use handles only. I have no idea who they are. but if we don't address this issue they will become so. > > > 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.